Week of January 22, 2007 - Two Senate Surge Resolutions

There will be competing resolutions to facilitate the "Sense of Congress" debate. One being the Biden/Hagel/Levin/Snowe language, and another, less strenuous version with negotiations being led by Senator Warner.

S.Con.Res.2, was submitted by Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Levin, and Ms. Snowe). This is the anti-Iraq-surge Resolution. It's a "sense of Congress" thingamabob - click on the link and read it, it's short.

An alternative effort has been mentioned in news reports as to be introduced today. Here are reports that I was able to find ...

U.S. sponsors of bipartisan resolution opposing troop surge ...

Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon said he was wary of the term "escalating" in the resolution and was working with Sens. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, on a "constructive, nonpartisan resolution that expresses the opposition of the Senate to the surge."

---===---

White House and Democrats in war of words on Iraq

The battle over Iraq policy was about to get more complicated in the Senate where Virginia Republican John Warner, Maine Republican Susan Collins and Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson said they would unveil on Monday an alternative nonbinding resolution on the troop increase. They gave no details.

---

The item scheduled to be on the Senate's to-do list for today is debate on H.R.2 - Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. That should be exciting.

UPDATE @ 14:10

Senator Baucus has been ranting about, of all things, Libby!

Libby, Montana that is. It's an old pet project of his, obtaining federal money for Libby, Montana to address the effects of an asbestos mine operated by W.R. Grace.

UPDATE @ 14:20

Senator Gregg's S.Amdt.101, relating to a line-item rescission, was entered. I'd forgotten about that. This could be a good debate.

Senator Reid filed a Cloture Motion to limit debate on the Gregg amendment, with the Cloture vote to be taken at the "usual" time, as far as I know, which would be Wednesday morning.

UPDATE @ 18:20

Senator Reid filed a Cloture Motion to limit debate on H.R.2 - Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. Senator McConnell indicates that he hopes cloture will not be invoked on the underlying bill. Senator Reid says that, with regard to the Gregg amendment, if cloture is not invoked, Senator Gregg will withdraw it.

Senator Warner will speak tonight, and that will end the business of the Senate for the day.

UPDATE @ Jan 24

Scooter Libby Trial - Read All About It

And in a related vein, the government filed its Response to Dow Jones (& Associated Press) Motion to Unseal. This filing is related to the legal action against Judy Miller and Matt Cooper, where they eventually were forced to testify. Dow Jones (and AP) are looking to make the case that such compulsion was unwarranted in the Plame leak investigation. In this Response, the government says it is willing to publish more of the material, but urges the Motion (and publication) be put on hold until after the Libby trial is complete, because what will be released to meet this Motion to Unseal will track closely with testimony elicited during the Libby trial.

---===---

One cloture vote (on the Gregg "line item rescission" amendment) to occur this morning.

that at 10:30 a.m., there be an hour for debate prior to the cloture vote on the Gregg amendment ... that at 11:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Gregg amendment

UPDATE @ 13:25

The cloture vote on limiting debate on Gregg's S.Amdt.101 (line item rescission power) was
REJECTED on a 49 - 48 vote.
Bayh and Lieberman voted AYE, Shelby voted NAY.

In light of that, Gregg will withdraw the amendment, and the Republicans can say "a majority of the votes cast were in favor of the amendment" (that's false, but some will say it anyway).

The cloture vote on limiting debate on the bill H.R.2 (minimum wage and tax relief) was
REJECTED on a 54 - 43 vote.
Snowe, Specter and Warner voted to invoke cloture, but that wasn't enough to limit debate and the bill amendment process.

---===---

Senator Warner's Iraq Resolution Speech from January 22

It is clear to us that the U.S. strategy and operations in Iraq can only be sustained and achieved with the support of the American people and with a level of bipartisanship in the Congress.

Well, if success depends on the level of bipartisanship, and on what constitutes "support of the American people," then I think "success" is beyond reach. A nasty scene all around, and my beef here is that Warner's premise is flawed. Sometimes success is in the offing even when the action is unpopular. Further, it doesn't matter what sort of sugar-coating the Senator tries to put around the sense of Congress, this statement (from his proposed resolution) speaks for itself ...

the Senate disagrees with the ``plan'' to augment our forces by 21,500, and urges the President instead to consider all options and alternatives for achieving the strategic goals set forth below with reduced force levels than proposed

UPDATE @ 15:50

Lucy in the Bon-Bon Factory - Mark Krikorian / NRO

This is an immigration piece (reacting to President Bush's continuing pressure for comprehensive immigration reform in the State of the Union Address) that has an awesome linked flow-chart summarizing S.2611 (200 kB pdf file). The fallacy is to assume that Congress will attempt exactly the same legislation this time around. There is no telling what will emerge from the Congressional meatgrinder - could be even more open immigration laws, could be more strict.

---===---

Seems the Senate is multi-tasking, between the minimum wage bill and the Iraq force monkeybusiness.

UPDATE @ 18:00

Senators Warner, Nelson of Nebraska, Salazar, and Collins are talking up their proposed anti-Iraq-surge resolution. Other co-sponsors are Bayh, Bill Nelson ... couple others I was distracted and missed.

Collins describes the hours of wordsmithing involved, and notes that Senators Smith and Coleman are also behind the resolution. I haven't done a nose count, but it sounds as though the GOP might have a hard time marshaling 41 votes to reject the inevitable cloture motion. "Inevitable," I think for this, but it is very unusual to bother with cloture on a resolution that represents a mere "Sense of Congress." Something to look up, perhaps later if a cloture motion is filed. But with the number of GOP supporters, and nearly all the DEMs ready to vote AYE on the resolution, cloture is the only way to stop "passing" the resolution.

UPDATE @ 19:15

I just noticed that the formal nominations for the Crocker, McConnell, Negroponte shuffle were sent to the Senate on Monday, the 22nd.

UPDATE @ Jan 25

The talks of Senators Warner, Nelson (NB), Collins and Salazar - Iraq - Jan 24 are getting repeat airplay on C-SPAN2. One can read their words by clicking on the link.

Click on ... S.Con.Res.2 to read the text as favorably reported out of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

In a similar vein, and just before the above speeches, Senator Byrd spoke on military action against Iran, as he introduced Senate Resolution 39 (the Warner thing is a Joint House/Senate resolution).

This resolution, which I hold in my hand--here it is--this resolution is a rejection--hear me--a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous, and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption. Let me say that again. This resolution, which I hold in my hand, is a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous, and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption, which proposes that the President--any President--may strike another country before that country threatens us, before that country threatens us. That is the doctrine of preemption: We may strike, we may attack, we may invade another country before it threatens us.

Fiery rhetoric, but it's adaptable rhetoric too, depending on how one takes the meaning of another country "threatening us." Did Afghanistan "threaten us?" How about Bosnia?

To be sure, Congress has a role in committing our armed forces, but so does the President. The division of authority is not always clear, nor will it ever be for certain fact patterns of "foreign threat."

At any rate, aside from Byrd's bluster, the Senate Resolution recites Constitutional truisms that have long been, and will continue to be the subject of debate. Byrd's speech shed no new light - except to express that he is against the President applying force against Iran or Syria until after the Congress agrees with such application of force.

More Committee chatter on the subject in store today, as well:

Committee on Armed Services: to hold hearings to examine the current situation in Iraq and on the Administration's recently announced strategy for continued United States assistance to the Iraqi government and for an increased United States military presence in Iraq, 9:30 a.m., SD-106.

Committee on Foreign Relations: to resume hearings to examine the remaining options relating to securing America's interests in Iraq focusing on reconstruction strategy, 9:15 a.m., SH-216.
Full Committee, to resume hearings to examine the remaining options relating to securing America's interests in Iraq focusing on political strategy, 2:30 p.m., SD-628.

---===---

Senators Sessions and Kennedy have submitted dueling amendments to the Minimum Wage Bill, where the dueling amendments are on the subject of immigration reform. The amendments aren't going to be debated under the Minimum Wage Bill, but they show the contours of the eventual immigration debate.

Text of Amendments (Jan 24) - find "SA 180. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 143 submitted by Mr. SESSIONS."

Text of Amendments (Jan 23) - more immigration related material than one would expect. Search for the words "immigration" and then "alien."

---===---

This morning, the Senate will be voting on Senator DeMint's S.Amdt.158, which increases the Federal Minimum wage in annual 70 cent increments, over a period of about two years. That is, 70 cents two months from the date of enactment, another 70 cents a year from that, and a final 70 cents a year after the second increase.

The Daily Digest - Jan 24 cites 17 pending amendments (!!), but none of them strikes me as exciting. The big events yesterday were rejection of cloture on Gregg's S.Amdt.101 for line-item rescission (not yet formally withdrawn, hmmmm), rejection of cloture on the underlying bill, and the various Senate actions to express what they fancy as their role as commanders of the armed forces (being anti-Iraq-surge).

Not that all the amendments to the Minimum Wage Bill are uninteresting, they just aren't exciting (to me anyway). A sampling:

• Enzi (for Ensign/Inhofe) Amendment No. 152, to reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system.
• Enzi (for Ensign) Amendment No. 153, to require both Houses of Congress approve a totalization agreement before the agreement, giving foreign workers Social Security benefits, can go into effect.
• Enzi (for Ensign) Amendment No. 154, to improve access to affordable health care.
• DeMint Amendment No. 159, to protect individuals from having their money involuntarily collected and used for lobbying by a labor organization.

UPDATE @ 10:54

The motion to waive the budget point of order DeMint's S.Amdt.158 (setting federal minimum wage to $2.10 on top of state's minimum wage) was
REJECTED on a 16 - 76 vote.

UPDATE @ 12:42

The motion to waive the budget point of order Ensign's S.Amdt.154 (To improve access to affordable health care) was
REJECTED on a 47 - 48 vote.

UPDATE @ Jan 25

Mr. KENNEDY. It is my understanding we are going to be on this bill as far as the eye can see. That is part of my problem on it. ...

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is not an omnibus tax bill, it is long overdue legislation to increase the minimum wage. It is not an opportunity for Members to present their tax cut wish list. It is Congress' opportunity to finally right the wrong of denying millions of hard working minimum wage workers a raise for 10 years.

There is some interesting debate in yesterday's record, and some mildly disappointing votes (e.g., tabling Kyl's S.Amdt.205), but nothing on a quick read that I figure would make a lasting impression on readers here, or that presages a more prominent debate in the future.

---===---

Senator Leahy introduced Rules of Procedure for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and introduced them (they look fairly straightforward) with a summary of other Committee proceedings, the most interesting one, to me, being "including our creation of a new subcommittee on Human Rights." Keep an eye out for action coming from this new subcommittee.

---===---

Orders for Friday: "the Senate then proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 1, the nomination of LTG David H. Petraeus; that there be 45 minutes for debate on the nomination ... the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination ... and the Senate then return to legislative session and resume consideration of H.R. 2, the minimum wage legislation."

Senator Gregg's S.Amdt.101 (line item rescission) remains pending (but set aside), not having been withdrawn when the cloture motion was rejected. In addition to that amendment, the bill has 19 other pending amendments, plus the "amendment in the nature of a substitute." I have to say, Reid has allowed the GOP more opportunity for debate and amendment than the GOP offered the DEMs in similar circumstances. I don't expect this sort of "agreement to debate" to be persistent, but to a close watcher, it's a clear change from Frist's practices.

UPDATE @ 10:08

The nomination of Petraeus was
CONFIRMED on a 81 - 00 vote. (I had guessed 94-0, but was distracted when the vote concluded. Look at all the absences!)

The long knives will come out later.

UPDATE @ 10:45

Enzi - we've voted on 11 of 100 amendments, and Reid is going to file a cloture motion that will cut-off the voting on amendments (the amendments can be more easily disposed of as non-germane, in a post cloture environment), and notes that in spite of the days passing on the calendar, not all that much action has actually taken place. Monday and Friday, all talk, no voting.

Today looks like a do-nothing day. Good for me.

UPDATE @ January 28

Senator McConnell on Face the Nation says that Senate rules will be used to insure that the Senate has more than one option vis-a-vis Iraq-surge resolutions. He hopes that not many Senators will support Warner's version (i.e., he wants the pending cloture motion to be rejected), and is not sure that ANY of the versions will get past the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to consideration.

Let me say that again ... Cloture motion on the Motion to Proceed to Consideration (or Cloture on the Motion to Take Up). This is an unusual but not rare procedural tactic to prevent the Senate from getting to a vote on the underlying matter. Senate procedure provides a series or sequence of steps, stalling at any of which can be used to prevent taking a vote. The first step is proceeding to consideration, the second step is ending debate and agreeing to take the vote.

Cloture Motion on a Motion to Proceed to the Consideration has been discussed in this space on numerous occasions ...

• On S.22, S.23 and S.1955 - Health Insurance
• On S.J.Res.1 - A Federal Marriage Amendment
• On S.3711 - The Gulf of Mexico energy security bill
• On H.R.8 - Repeal or Modify the Estate Tax
• On H.R.6061 - The Secure Fence Act
• On H.R.5970 - Minimum Wage and Estate Tax Act of 2006
• On The Whitewater Investigation

The procedural posture for S.Con.Res.2 (an Iraq-surge resolution) is that there is objection by at least one Senator to taking it up. Reid has filed a Cloture Motion on the Motion to Proceed to the Cosideration of S.Con.Res.2. If that cloture motion is rejected (41 NAY votes is guaranteed rejection) then the Senate won't formally take up the resolution for debate. They'll still debate it, "as if in morning business" or under some other rubric, but without having the Concurrent Resolution being the formal business of the Senate, the talk has no ultimate object.

The cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the consideration of S.Con.Res.2 is scheduled for noon Tuesday.

Opening of the 110th Congress

Happy New Year!

I don't expect to be nearly as diligent at tracking action in the Senate as I was for a few months of 2006. I'll more likely pick and choose through the issues, and that on a delayed basis. Live blogging the Senate is a chore, rarely a joy.

---===---

I notice Social Security Totalization with Mexico "in the news." It's not new. See comments on May 22, 2006 that further cite to a Totalization Agreement being composed by the Social Security Administration in 2004, but President Bush not submitting it to Congress since that time.

---===---

I'm curious as to whether or not President Bush will renominate the Judicial candidates left over from the 108th Congress - that's no typo, Myers was filibustered in the 108th, and other nominations had been in the Senate for more than the two years that comprise one entire Congress - and also wonder if he'll renominate the ones returned at the conclusion of the 109th. One of the ten Circuit Court nominations returned to the President last December (Wallace) has withdrawn his name from consideration.

Time for a fresh Circuit Court Nominations Summary too, I suppose. Here is a link to the Circuit Court Nominations Summary - 109th Congress for reference.

---===---

Old battle, new news.

Congress, Bush poised for 1st friction
LA Times - Richard B. Schmitt - January 3, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Setting up what could become the first showdown between the Bush administration and the new Democratic Congress, the Justice Department has refused to turn over two secret documents, describing the CIA's detention and interrogation policies for suspected terrorists, to the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who asked for the documents in November, said Tuesday that the department's response suggested that President Bush's promise to work with the new Congress "may have been only political lip service."

Leahy has said he might use subpoenas to get the material.

Here is a link to Senator Leahy's January 2nd response (and his November 16 request), a somewhat delayed response to the Justice Department's December 22 letter (840 kB pdf file).

---===---

President Bush short speech from White House, following cabinet meeting.

He is hopeful that the political parties can work together.

His priorities:

• Spend the people's money wisely
• Bush will submit 5 yr budget proposal, budget balanced by 2012
• Priorities on National Defense and Homeland Security
• Pro-growth economic policies
• Make the tax cuts permanent
• Vital entitlement programs need to be reformed. SS, Medicare, Medicaid
• Reform the Congressional earmarks process - cut in half by next year
• "Line item veto"

The President didn't reply to reporter's question, "Do you think Saddam's execution was handled appropriately?"

---===---

Courtesy of confirmthem.com, Harriet Miers Resigns, effective January 31. This is apt to have no impact on the first slate of judicial nominations that will come forward, I expect President Bush will resubmit all of the returned nominations - except Wallace who has withdrawn himself.

Related reading: Byron York on GOP plans to confirm 17 Circuit Court judges over the next two years. Yeah, but, the number isn't the totality of the issue. What are the qualifications and judicial inclination of the nominees? Will the President advance 17 Harriet Miers-like (that is, prequalified by the Democrats) nominees?

---===---

Harry Reid is introducing the 110th Senate's preliminary agenda. It's a yawner, as far as I can tell. Immigration reform, minimum wage, etc. Ten bills, S.1 through S.10. S.10 being a "pay as you go" rule (read "tax increases to match our spending").

Senator McConnell says that the GOP has reserved bill numbers S.11 through S.20, and that the contents of these will be revealed after caucus meetings, and over the next two to several weeks.

---===---

Bad, but expected, news on the Judicial nominations front ...

Michigan [All] senators get more say over judges

U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said this week that both senators from a state, regardless of party affiliation, will have to concur with a nomination before a nominee will even be considered by his committee.

---===---

And some heated rhetoric on the subject of immigration reform.

Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
On The Introduction Of A Bill To Provide
For Comprehensive Immigration Reform

I share the disappointment of tens of millions of Americans who had hoped President Bush would have exercised his constitutional authority to veto that costly, cobbled-together and mean-spirited law. Instead, the President seemed to have abandoned his principles in signing the Secure Fence Act that will cost between $2 billion and $9 billion and fail to perform as advertised to seal our southern border.

The link includes the full text of S.9 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. It's merely a "Sense of the Senate" resolution, and contains zero substance.

Say what you will about Leahy, at least he commits his positions to writing and makes them available to the public.

---===---

Thomas, the Congressional Record link, hasn't yet adjusted itself to accommodate the start of the 110th Congress.

---===---

Thomas, the Congressional Record link, is "up" for the 100th Congress.

Senate, January 4, 2007

Bills S.1 through S.193 were introduced. Mostly retreads, McCain-Feingold II as S.192, for example; and S.187 as Senator Specter's version of FISA improvement.

On S.1 - Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 (lobbying reform, etc.), Senator Collins continues her (and Senator Lieberman's) push, "While I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill, I also believe strongly that it would be improved by the addition of an independent Office of Public Integrity within the Legislative Branch."

There is no text provided for S.2 - the proposed minimum wage revisions, or for S.5 - the proposed stem cell research law.

The following are all "Sense of the Senate," no substantive material whatsoever:

• S.3 - Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007
• S.4 - Improving America's Security by Implementing Unfinished Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007
• S.6 - National Energy and Environmental Security Act of 2007
• S.7 - College Opportunity Act of 2007
• S.8 - Rebuilding America's Military Act of 2007
• S.9 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007

So on the first day of the Senate, the majority introduced 10 bills with some fanfare, 2 of which (S.1 and S.10) actually contain substantive text, 6 of which are nothing-burgers, and 2 (S.2 - Minimum Wage, and S.5 - Stem Cell) without any text. And guess which are first up? S.1, S.2 and S.5 - plus S.113, the appropriations for Military Housing that Senator Hutchison tried valiantly to get passed at the end of the 109th Congress.

Oh, S.10 - Restoring Fiscal Discipline Act of 2007 (Paygo) did have accompanying text. It has a 3/5th override provision, similar to the Senate currently uses to override its past promise not to appropriate money outside of the budget.

S.21 - Prevention First Act, contains a number of provisions that will be contentious. Wrapped into this bill are "Title X Family Planning Services Act of 2007," "Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act of 2007," "Emergency Contraception Education Act of 2007," "Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act of 2007," "At-Risk Communities Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act of 2007," "Truth in Contraception Act of 2007," "Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act of 2007," and "Responsible Education About Life Act of 2007."

Click here to see whatever text is available for S.1 through S.193. I doubt that the introductions of the first day of the Congress are a reliable indicator of where the Senate will wander in the coming year.

The Senate did manage first, second and third readings, and passage of S.159 - to redesignate the White Rocks National Recreation Area in the State of Vermont as the Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area - all in one, the first even, legislative day. I point that out to disabuse readers of the notion that Senate Rules regarding the legislative process are literally enforced.

Monday's business will be mundane. The Senate will debate and vote on S. Res. 19, a resolution celebrating the life of the late President Gerald R. Ford. Senator Reid is advancing the progress of S.1 - Lobbying Reform and Legislative Transparency, through a second reading, but notes that he does not have unanimous consent to take that up. Maybe the Republicans will be obstructionist right out of the starting gate.

Senator Coburn's counterpoint to Senator Landrieu's opening begathon indicates the use of fiscal responsibility as justification for obstructing new bills. Senator Coburn claims he will withhold his consent to take up legislation unless:

First is for me to agree to a unanimous consent on legislation in the 110th Congress, the bill has to conform to the vision of the limited Federal Government set forth by the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. In other words, it has to be constitutional.

Second, if it creates or authorizes a new Federal program or activity, it must not duplicate an existing program or activity.

Third, if a bill authorizes new spending, it must be offset by reductions in real spending elsewhere.

If a program or activity currently receives funding from sources including, but not limited to, the Federal Government, the bill shall not increase the Federal Government's share of that spending.

Finally, if a bill establishes a new foundation, museum, cultural or historic site, or other entity that is not an agency or a department, the Federal funding should be limited to the initial start-up cost plus an endowment that can be added to through private funding.

---===---

Judiciary Committee Hearing at 9:30 AM on January 10: Balancing Privacy and Security: The Privacy Implications of Government Data Mining Programs.

Prepared Testimony (no substance at the links, yet) ...

• The Honorable Robert Barr (Liberty Strategies, LLC)
• James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. (Heritage Foundation)
• Mr. Jim Harper (CATO Institute)
• Ms. Leslie Harris (Center for Democracy and Technology)
• Mr. Kim A. Taipale (Center for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology Policy)

UPDATE @ January 8

The first roll call vote of the do-nothing 110th Senate. The link to the roll-call votes summary page isn't working as I type this. Hopefully it will be working "eventually," as a reverse chronological list of Senate roll call votes is a handy resource.

S.Res.19 - Honoring President Gerald Rudolph Ford, was
PASSED (as modified) on a 88 - 0 vote.

UPDATE @ 13:58

More nominations announced as "intended." Perhaps President Bush will submit a list of judicial nominations sometime this week.

Personnel Announcement - January 8, 2007

The President intends to nominate Zalmay Khalilzad, of Maryland, to be Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, the Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations, and Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during his tenure of service as Representative of the United States to the United Nations. ...

The President intends to nominate Ryan C. Crocker, of Washington, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Iraq. Ambassador Crocker, a career member of the Foreign Service, currently serves as United States Ambassador to Pakistan.

---===---

The following bill, S.1, will be subject of debate at some point this week.

Text of S.1
Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007

The bill is co-sponsored by Minority Leader McConnell. Other Republicans signed on as co-sponsors are Senators Bennett, Collins and Minority Whip Lott.

Feinstein and Lieberman will be the bill leaders on the Democratic side.

The parallel legislation in the 109th Congress was S.2349 - A bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process which passed the Senate on a 90 - 8 vote, on March 29, 2006. The Democrats objected to taking the bill up, and refused to invoke cloture for taking it up on March 9, 2006. Republicans Vitter and Talent also objected to taking the bill up, at that time. Apparently there was a change of heart, because the cloture motion passed easily 19 days later.

In presser, Reid says the Senate will vote "on this bill" on Friday, and finish the bill next week. Say what? How can it be voted on, Friday, and be left over for next week? Sounds like the bill will be offered, and there will be objection to taking it up, resulting in a need to go through the cloture process just to have the bill taken up. We'll know tomorrow.

UPDATE @ 17:10

Fred F. Fielding to be named as White House Counsel (hat tip, confirmthem.com)

UPDATE @ January 10

President Bush made a round of Circuit and District Court nominations.

Circuit Court Nominations Summary for 110th Congress

Four of the contentious five withdrew from consideration (technically, one of them, Boyle, was withdrawn by the White House, the other three sent the equivalent of resignation letters), but N. Randy Smith, who is held up because Senator Feinstein wants the Idaho seat to be given to a judge from California, was renominated for the third time. That is, he's been nominated four times for the same post (and moved out of the Senate Judiciary Committee twice), but the Senate hasn't taken the nomination up for a vote.

Great discussion of various points relating to the nominations at this post at confirmthem.com.

---===---

I didn't watch the Senate on Tuesday, but see that it diddled around with S.1 - Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007. Senator Reid had indicated that the bill amending process would begin yesterday, but that the bill itself would not be voted on until next week. My speculation was incorrect, that there might be objection to taking the bill up. Dang - I was hoping for some early fireworks.

As is typical for Senate procedure, the first amendment offered (S.Amdt.3) is in the nature of a substitute - it rewrites the entire bill. Senators McConnell and Collins are the only Republican co-sponsors of the amendment. Typical for Senate process, the text of the amendment is not widely available to the general public at the time the Senate is debating it.

And after the Senate legislates itself transparent and/or ethical (neither will happen, ever), it will take up the Minimum Wage bill (S.2?), followed by either Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research with Taxpayer Money, or Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation.

---===---

The House passed H.R.1 - Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007 (cargo inspection and scanning, unionizing the TSA, modifying the federal cash-to-states redistribution formula ... and a bunch of ... well, scan the text of the engrossed bill starting at the end for a taste) and sent it to the Senate. It was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Any over/under bets on it coming out of Committee?

UPDATE @ January 10 - 09:30

Text of Amendments (S.Amdt. 1 through S.Amdt. 8) to S.1

Kennedy's "no escalation in Iraq" bill is S.233. Co-sponsors are Kerry, Boxer, Sanders, Harkin and Leahy. Kennedy made no remarks from the floor of the Senate on the introduction of this bill, and the text of the legislation is not available. I'm seeing a pattern here, of keeping the people in the dark.

A couple of nominations that for some reason caught my eye early on, are still kicking around after persistent lack of action by the Senate. Richard Stickler was again renominated to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health. Another poke in Kennedy's and Byrd's eye. Julie Myers (a nepotism pick) was also renominated to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security.

UPDATE @ 12:21

Vitter's S.Amdt.7 (to establish criminal penalties for knowingly and willfully falsifying or failing to file or report certain financial information) was
PASSED on a 93 - 2 vote. Lott and Lugar cast the NAY votes.

These votes are meaningless, except as talking points. This bill, after being passed, will be sent to conference with the House. The votes that matter will be those on whatever bill emerges from conference ... if a bill emerges from conference.

Senator Grassley is up talking about the Medicare Drug Price negotiation proposal. He notices that companies don't mind giving discounts to preferred customers, they just increase prices to their other customers -- I would add that when the profit margin is too small, intelligent companies skip the research, production, and marketing activity altogether.

---===---

Hahahahaha. Pelosi bans smoking in the Speaker's Lobby off the House floor. They're still a pack of hypocrites. Rules for thee, but not for me ...

Smoking is banned in most federal buildings ... lawmakers will still be allowed to smoke in their own offices.

UPDATE @ 13:52

Senator Collins is up trying to convince people who mail things that mail is secure against being opened by the government. President Bush's signing statement on the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act kicked off a firestorm by civil libertarians - people just didn't "get it" that the signing statement represents the current state of the law, not a change.

But this "sanctity of our mail system" line of Senator Collins is bullshit. The fact that Collins is bothering to promote a "sense of the Senate" resolution is pretty funny. She completely blew past the phrase "the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection," which represents the legal justification for surveillance without a warrant.

UPDATE @ 14:10

Uh oh. Republican Norm Coleman is not supporting a troop surge directed to Baghdad, Iraq. Put him on the GOP "bad boys" list.

---===---

Senator Leahy wants to discuss S.Amdt.2, the text of which is (drumroll) unavailable. Same old story. Hide the ball and quorum call.

UPDATE @ 15:35

Senator Conrad is rebutting Senator DeMint on a Presidential "Line Item Suggestion of Rescission" bill, where the president is given the power to suggest Congress to reverse items in a bill.

UPDATE @ 17:24

Vitter's S.Amdt.5 (to modify the application of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to Indian tribes) was TABLED on a 56 - 40 vote.

UPDATE @ 17:44

Vitter's S.Amdt.6 (to prohibit family members of Congressmen from being lobbyists) was
TABLED on a 54 - 41 vote. Senator Boxer voted "present." What a drama queen.

---===---

Action scheduled for Thursday, January 11 ...

Stevens Amdt (travel): 1 hour debate then an 11:30 am vote. (Yaaaaawn)

---===---

Club For Growth live blogs the Senate excitement over Senator DeMint's introduction of S.Amdt.11, which adopts the language of House Speaker Pelosi's earmark proposal, and the Senate Democrats failed attempt to table the measure proposed by their Democrat counterparts in the House.

I disagree that a vote on passage is necessarily the mirror image of a vote to table. Usually, yes - if not tabled, the amendment is adopted on a voice vote. But not always.

McConnell's S.Amdt.4085 to the Senate's second Immigration Package (S.2611) survived a motion to table on a close vote (48-49), and was subsequently rejected by the chair for being non-germane.

Kyl's S.Amdt.3206 to the Senate's first Immigration Package (S.2454) survived a motion to table on a 99-0 vote, but was never adopted - not even before the bill as a whole was killed 3 days later, when a bipartisan Senate would not agree to cloture. Kyl's amendment was "not tabled" on the fourth, debated between Kyle and Durbin on the fifth, and was "pending as an amendment" on the sixth and seventh of April last year.

Schumer's S.Amdt.309 to a bill relating to State Department and international broadcasting (S.600) survived a motion to table on a 33-67 vote, was not adopted, the bill was set aside for other business, returned to the calender 20 days after that, and not again taken up.

The larger point, that the Democrats are divided on earmark transparency is of course true. The Republicans are similarly divided. Of course, all this action on the Senate floor makes for great theater - and I'm really glad other more prominent blogs are watching Senate action - it means I don't have to.

UPDATE @ January 12

Senator Reid is working to salvage this fiasco by offering an amendment to S.Amdt.11. It appears there has been a conference between the Senators that resulted in a mutually agreeable compromise.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, January 16, at 5:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Durbin amendment No. 44, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the DeMint amendment No. 11, as amended, if amended, and then without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on amendment No. 14; that if the Durbin amendment is not modified to Senator DeMint's satisfaction, then the agreement with respect to a vote with respect to the two amendments be vitiated.

Reid also filed a couple of cloture motions to cause the bill to be settled early next week. First, a cloture motion of S.Amdt.3, the substitute for the original bill; and then a cloture motion on S.1 itself.

---===---

Senator Kyl on the withdrawal of Boyle, Haynes, Myers and Wallace. Fine time to raise a fuss, Senator. Where were you 6 months ago? On the other hand, he gives great exposure to Ed Whelan of National Review Online [scroll to the end of my post to see 10 links to Mr. Whelan's analyses], on the subject of the ABA's disgusting lies relating to Wallace.

UPDATE @ January 16

Durbin's second degree S.Amdt.44 (transparency in earmarks) was
PASSED on a 98 - 0.

DeMint's S.Amdt.11 (transparency in earmarks) was
PASSED on a 98 - 0 vote.

A cloture vote on limiting debate on Reid's S.Amdt.4 (to strengthen the gift and travel bans) was
PASSED on a 95 - 2 vote.

UPDATE @ January 18

Some excitement on the Wednesday 17th, as the Republicans used cloture in an attempt to force consideration of Senator Gregg's "line item veto" amendment.

The cloture motion to limit debate on Reid's S.Amdt.3 (in the nature of a substitute) was
REJECTED on a 51 - 46 vote.
GOP AYE Votes: Coleman and Smith

The failed cloture vote is "still pending" theoretically, as Reid made a motion to reconsider the vote. There were some good speeches before and after this development ...

LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007 - Jan 17

Reid: Anyone who votes against cloture is creating some real political problems for himself. I think the American people think that something should be done with this culture of corruption we have back here. (at Page S655)

---===---

Gregg: We do not wish to bring this bill down. We simply wish to get a vote on a reasonable amendment that won't survive germaneness postcloture; therefore, it has to be voted before cloture. It is an entirely reasonable position for the minority to take, especially since the amendment has been aggressively vetted by having been through this process so many times and actually has been pretty well defined by the Supreme Court as to what rights we have and what rights we don't have. That is why it is structured the way it is so it is constitutional. (at Page S658)

---===---

McConnell: Unfortunately, the majority leader has an objection on his side, and therefore it appears we will not be able to finish this bill this week. I hope we can continue to work on a path toward finishing the underlying bill. It passed last year 90 to 8, after the then-minority defeated cloture on one occasion in order to do exactly what this minority is going to do to defeat cloture on one occasion, which is to guarantee consideration of additional amendments. (at Page S664)

---===---

After the Cloture Motion was Rejected

    Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise tonight at this late hour. The hour is late and the night is black. I rise tonight to shine a bright light on political chicanery that is playing out on the Senate floor.

    In November, America voted for a change. The people sent a strong signal that they wanted less partisanship and more accountability in Washington. In response to the voters, Senator Reid, Senator Feinstein, and Senator McConnell put before the Senate an ethics reform bill that would add transparency and accountability to the legislative process. They should be proud of their product, and the Senate has had a good debate thus far on the bill.

    But wait, wait, wait 1 second. Before we can clear the way for greater accountability and sunshine into the way work gets done in these halls, the Senate is being blackmailed into an assault on the Congress's single most precious and most powerful authority--the power of the purse. That is the most powerful authority we have: the power of the purse.

    Tonight, this reform bill is threatened by an effort by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to give the President line-item veto authority. No vote on the line-item veto, they say, and no ethics reform. That is nothing more than legislative blackmail, and I, for one, will not pay the price. No one should stand still when this Constitution, which I hold in my hand, is the hostage. No one should stand still, I repeat, when this Constitution, which I hold in my hand, is the hostage.

    This line-item veto authority would grant tremendous and dangerous new power to the President. He would have unchecked authority to take from the Congress the power of the purse, a power that the constitutional Framers thought was absolutely vital to protecting the people's liberties.

    It was just 8 years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the line-item veto was unconstitutional. Now our colleagues--some of them--on the other side of the aisle are threatening to hold up the ethics reform bill in an effort to hand the President another line-item veto authority. Are the memories around here so short?

    Are the memories around here so short?

    We have a President who already has asserted too much power. This is a blatantly gross attempt to take even more power for the President and strip away power from the people.

    This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to tap into the telephone conversations of American citizens without a warrant or court approval.

    This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to sneak and peek, to snoop and scoop, into the private lives of the American people.

    This President has taken the Nation to a failed war based on faulty evidence and the misrepresentation of facts. And many Senators voted not realizing that was what was being done when we voted on the war resolution.

    So I say, this President has taken the Nation to a failed war based on faulty evidence and an unconstitutional doctrine of preemptive strikes. More than 3,000 American sons and daughters have died in Iraq in this crazed Presidential misadventure.

    And what is the response of the Senate? To give the President even more unfettered authority? To give him greater unchecked powers? We have seen the danger of the blank check. We have lived through the aftermath of a rubberstamp Congress. We should not continue to lie down for this President or any other President. (at Pages 666, 7)

---

The other "hot" item, S.Con.Res.2, was submitted by Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Levin, and Ms. Snowe). This is the anti-Iraq-surge Resolution. It's a "sense of Congress" thingamabob - click on the link and read it, it's short. You may find yourself reading Senator Biden's introduction as well -- I know I did.

UPDATE @ 19:57

Senator Gregg has agreed to withdraw his amendment, with the understanding that it will be one of the first amendments considered on H.R.2 - the Minimum Wage bill, on Monday.

The Senate will work late tonight, debating 6 to 9 amendments (I lost count), then voting on the substitute amendment, then the bill. It's anticipated that the bill will pass tonight.

No votes in the Senate tomorrow (or Monday).

UPDATE @ 21:18

S.1 passed 96 -2 (Coburn and Hatch were the NAY votes), after roll call votes on a couple of amendments, and voice votes on many others. I'm not sure it's worth reading the fine print, although a good number of the provisions are "Senate only," and therefore not amenable to revision in conference to settle differences with the House.

What a big week. I say they should take Friday off as a reward.

Senator Coburn up to discuss what went on the last two weeks, noting a "crisis of confidence" in Congress. "The American people should be on guard ... they would like to see transparency and sunshine ... some of the things that went on, on the way to get to this bill, were not transparent. Some of the things agreed to in this bill were not debated because they will be discarded in conference. [talks about earmarks]"

"What's going to happen when this bill goes to conference? ... Lobbyists aren't the problem, members of Congress are the problem. ... We just passed a 'gotcha system' where people (Congressmen) making innocent mistakes will be ruined."

He gives good advice - the people should watch for what comes out of the conference committee. Coburn's a good man - he's giving outstanding advice here.

UPDATE @ 21:35

I'll be dipped. Reid did have them take Friday off. Back in session at 1 PM Monday.

Circuit Court Nominations Summary (110)

Circuit Court Nominations Summary
110th Congress

Ten Nominations Returned on December 9, 2006
Wallace withdrew on December 23, 2006
Haynes, Myers, Boyle withdrew on January 9, 2007.

Circuit Court Nominations - 109th Congress

F = One of 7 subjected to failed cloture motions in 108th Congress
4 = "1 of 4" that DEMs offered to let GOP choose which 3 to dump
S = Positive mention in Specter's May 9, 2005 speech

M = MOU of 14 will not vote against cloture
m = MOU of 14 makes no promise regarding cloture
R = Post-MOU, Reid indicates desire to filibuster

C = Out of committee & on the Senate's Executive Calendar
c = Once out of Committee, now returned
V = Vote -on the nomination- concluded
X1 = Nomination returned to the President
X2 = Nomination twice returned to the President
X3 = Nomination thrice returned to the President
W = Nomination WITHDRAWN by Nominee or the President

       Nominations Through Confirmation Process
       ========================================
       ---  --  CX3V  Smith, N. Randy          12/05 (9th Cir) 02/15/07
       ---  --  CX1V  Hardiman, Thomas M.      09/06 (3rd Cir) 03/15/07
       ---  --  CX1V  Livingston, Debra Ann    06/06 (2nd Cir) 05/09/07
       ---  --  C--V  Elrod, Jennifer W.       03/07 (5th Cir) 10/04/07
       ---  --  C--V  Southwick, Leslie        01/07 (5th Cir) 10/24/07
       ---  --  C--V  Tinder, John Daniel      07/07 (7th Cir) 12/18/07
       ---  --  C--V  Haynes, Catharina        07/07 (5th Cir) 04/10/08
       ---  --  C--V  Agee, G. Steven          03/08 (4th Cir) 05/20/08
       ---  --  C--V  White, Helene N.         04/08 (6th Cir) 06/24/08
       ---  --  CX1V  Kethledge, Raymond M.    06/06 (6th Cir) 06/24/08

       Nominations Withdrawn or Returned
       =================================
       --S  --  cX3W  Boyle, Terrence W.       05/01 (4th Cir)  
       F4S  mR  cX3W  Myers, William Gerry III 05/03 (9th Cir)  
       ---  -R  -X3W  Haynes, William James II 09/03 (4th Cir)  
       ---  --  -X3W  Wallace, Michael B.      12/06 (5th Cir) 
       ---  --  ---W  Getchell, E. Duncan Jr.  09/07 (4th Cir)
       ---  --  -X1W  Murphy, Steven J. III    06/06 (6th Cir)
       ---  --  ---W  Pratter, Gene E.K.       11/07 (3rd Cir) 07/08

       1st Session of 110th
       ====================
       ---  --  -X2-  Keisler, Peter D.        06/06 (D.C. Cir)
       ---  --  ----  Conrad, Robert J.        07/07 (4th Cir)
       ---  --  ----  Stone, Shalom D.         07/07 (3rd Cir)
       ---  --  ----  Matthews, Steve A.       09/07 (4th Cir)
       ---  --  ----  Rosenstein, Rod J.       11/07 (4th Cir)
       ---  --  ----  Smith, William E.        12/07 (1st Cir)

       2nd Session of 110th
       ====================
       ---  --  ----  Conrad, Glen E.          05/08 (4th Cir)
       ---  --  ----  Diamond, Paul S.         07/08 (3rd Cir)
       ---  --  ----  Preska, Loretta A.       09/08 (2nd Cir)

Last updated: September 10, 2008

Boyle: First nominated May 9, 2001, out of Committee on June 16, 2005, returned to President August 4, 2006, renominated September 5, 2006, returned to President September 29, 2006, renominated November 15, 2006, returned to President December 9, 2006, withdrawn by White House January 9, 2007.
Haynes, William: First nominated May 9, 2001, renominated Sept 29, 2003, renominated Feb 14, 2005, returned to President August 4, 2006, renominated September 5, 2006, returned to President September 29, 2006, renominated November 15, 2006, returned to President December 9, 2006, withdrew self January 9, 2007.
Myers: First nominated May 15, 2003, out of Committee on March 17, 2005, returned to President August 4, 2006, renominated September 5, 2006, returned to President September 29, 2006, renominated November 15, 2006, returned to President December 9, 2006, withdrew self January 9, 2007.
Wallace: First nominated on February 8, 2006 - (FR Thread), returned to President August 4, renominated September 5, returned to President September 29, renominated November 15, returned to President December 9, 2006, withdrew self December 23, 2006.

Smith, Randy: First nominated on December 16, 2005, out of Committee May 4, returned to President August 4, renominated September 5, out of Committee September 21, returned to President September 29, renominated November 15, returned to President December 9, 2006, renominated January 9, out of Committee February 8, 2007, Confirmed 96-0 on February 15, 2007.
Kethledge: First nominated on June 28, returned to President December 9, 2006, renominated on March 19, 2007, out of Committee June 12, 2008, Confirmed on a voice vote on June 24, 2008.
Livingston: First nominated on June 28, 2006, returned to President December 9, 2006, renominated January 9, 2007, Confirmed 96-0 on May 9, 2007.
Murphy: First nominated on June 28, returned to President December 9, 2006, renominated on March 19, 2007, withdrawn on April 15, 2008.
Keisler: First nominated on June 29, 2006, returned to President September 29, renominated November 15, returned to President December 9, 2006, renominated January 9, 2007.
Hardiman: First nominated on September 13, 2006, returned to President December 9, 2006, renominated January 9, 2007, out of Committee March 8, Confirmed 95-0 on March 15, 2007.
Southwick: Nominated January 9, 2007, out of Committee August 2, Cloture passed 62-35 on October 24, Confirmed 59-38 on October 24, 2007.
Elrod: Nominated March 29, 2007, out of Committee September 20, Confirmed on a voice vote on October 4, 2007.
R. Conrad: Nominated July 17, 2007.
Haynes, Catharina: Nominated July 17, 2007, out of Committee April 3, Confirmed on a voice vote on April 10, 2008.
Stone: Nominated July 17, 2007.
Tinder: Nominated July 17, 2007, out of Committee November 1, Confirmed 93-0 on December 18, 2007.
Getchell: Nominated September 6, 2007, withdrew self January 19, 2008.
Matthews: Nominated September 6, 2007.
Pratter: Nominated November 15, 2007, withdrawn July 24, 2008.
Rosenstein: Nominated November 15, 2007.
Smith, Wm.: Nominated December 6, 2007.
Agee: Nominated March 13, 2008, out of Committee May 19, Confirmed 96-0 on May 20, 2008.
White: Nominated April 15, 2008, out of Committee June 12, 2008, Confirmed 63-32 on June 24, 2008.
G. Conrad: Nominated May 8, 2008.
Diamond: Nominated July 24, 2008.
Preska: Nominated September 9, 2008.

Additional Reference Material

• Senate List of Nominations in Committee (not only judicial)
• List of nominations returned to the President (not only judicial)
• Judiciary Committee List of Nominations in the 109th Congress
• Senate Executive Calendar (changes each business day)
• ABA Ratings for Nominees in 109th Congress (PDF)
• Specter's Speech of May 9, 2005 (109th Congress - Pages S4632 - S4636)
• Senators' Memorandum of Understanding (PDF) - May 23, 2005
• Reid's agreement of May 24, 2005 (S5857)
• AP Report Reid wants to filibuster Haynes & Kavanaugh - May 28, 2005
• Fox News Report Reid will filibuster Saad & Myers - May 29, 2005
• Boyle was nominated to 4th Cir. in 1991 too, by GHWB
• Dec 01, 2005: Anticipation of N. Randy Smith Nomination
• Feb 14, 2006: Feinstein opposed to Randy Smith
• Mar 03, 2006: Feinstein will block Randy Smith
• Mar 31, 2006: Haynes to be blocked by McCain and Graham
• May 01, 2006: Attacks on Boyle for ethics viloations
• May 09, 2006: Senator Leahy calls on President Bush to withdraw Boyle
• May 10, 2006: ABA hands Wallace a rating of "Not Qualified"
• May 23, 2006: Nominee [Haynes] is held up by Graham
• Jun 04, 2006: Groups pressure Senator Graham re: Haynes
• Jun 06, 2006: WaPo - Retired Military oppose Haynes
• Jun 12, 2006: Debbie Schlussel on Steven Murphy
• Jun 22, 2006: Some members of gang-of-14 comment on Boyle
• Jul 14, 2006: Gang of 14 hints at nixing Haynes
• Jul 18, 2006: ABA downgrades Boyle from unanimously well qualified to qualified
• Jan 12, 2007: Senator Kyl re: Withdrawal of Myers, Haynes, Boyle and Wallace
• Jan 16, 2007: N. Randy Smith nomination "shifted" out of California seat
• Nov 16, 2007: Getchell sued for defamation, conspiracy and negligence
• Feb 07, 2008: President Bush on Senate inaction on nominations
• Mar 13, 2008: Stalemate Over Judicial Nominations Dampens Bush Legacy
• Jul 02, 2008: Senators Agree on New Federal Judges Package