Unanimous Consent Senate Watch

Who Will Win The Iowa Caucuses?

2012-01-01T17:23:00.000-08:00

As the Iowa caucuses approach two days from now, we have some final thoughts. Many commentators and journalists have all but given the Iowa caucus to Mitt Romney. But we think he would be the de facto loser in Iowa for these reasons:

(1) If Romney wins the vote, he officially becomes the front-runner. As the Republican Party scrutinizes him, most Republicans will remember that they do not like him and try to coalesce around a conservative candidate. His momentum would be broken in South Carolina.

(2) If Romney gets anything less than first place, he looks like a complete loser. This is because his campaign has raised expectations of a victory to the maximum point, and every article in every major newspaper has focused on the prospect of a Romney victory.

(3) The only thing the polls really show is that Romney faces a very tough threat from Ron Paul, Rick Santorum is surging and could split or pick up the social conservative vote, and that Gingrich and Romney are very much close in the national poll (24-26% respectively, up from 23-27% in a poll with a 4% margin of error - very much anybody's game).

(4) Newt Gingrich wouldn't have to do very much to be one of the "winners" in Iowa. In politics, lowering expectations can create the impression of a come-from-behind victory and give you momentum. Because the general trend in the news media has been to trash Gingrich, expectations are low. If Gingrich can achieve second, or even third place he can very much stay in the running nationally as a viable alternative to Mitt Romney -- and this will be a prominent story in the newspapers.

Beating Romney: What To Watch For In The Republican Primaries (Romney Can't Win)

2011-12-30T17:42:00.000-08:00

We've always maintained that Republicans simply won't buy into Mitt Romney. While the news media has jumped on the "Mitt Romney has overwhelming momentum and will be the nominee" bandwagon, we continue to maintain that the Republican nominee will be decided by what "anti-Romney" candidate the Republican party coalesces around.

While there has been a lot of attention paid to Romney's gains in Iowa, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are only about two points apart today in the only poll that counts - Gallup (Gingrich has 24%; Romney has 26%). This is actually +1 for Gingrich. Gingrich still dominates in South Carolina and Florida - and consequently most of the Southern states. Since the creation of the South Carolina primary, a Republican candidate has not been able to become the nominee without it -- a sure sign that conservatives of the Southern and Midwestern variety are the true swing votes in the Republican Party.

We will also have to pay very close attention to the performance of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. If Ron Paul wins, there will be a lot of speculation about his performance in later primaries. It will also make Mitt Romney look bad because his campaign has significantly raised expectations about his performance. But if Rick Santorum gets first, second, or third, his campaign will get a boost in momentum because expectations for him have been so low. Because the really conservative wing of the party is looking for a candidate, this could either split the conservative vote among the non-Romney candidates or unify the anti-Romney vote around Santorum, ending the campaigns of Gingrich, Bachmann, and Perry.

And finally, if Mitt Romney does win in Iowa, momentum will simply follow the pattern it always has -- the moment Mitt Romney gets more scrutiny, the more determined his opposition becomes to unite around one of his opponents.

Don't Count Gingrich Out of Iowa

2011-12-28T11:47:00.000-08:00

New PPP polling in Iowa is showing Ron Paul maintaining a lead over Mitt Romney in Iowa, followed by Newt Gingrich. The Hill is reporting that Newt Gingrich's failure to counter the barrage of negative attack ads from his opponents has led to his fall in Iowa. The Gingrich campaign is lowering expectations in Iowa, saying it would be content with a lower place finish in Iowa and that it will still dominate in South Carolina.

Here are some reasons you shouldn't count Gingrich out in Iowa:

(1) People hate negative ads.
Mitt Romney and Ron Paul appear to have momentum in Iowa largely because of the barrage of negative ads launched against Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich has only countered with positive ads reinforcing his message of conservative job creation.

While negative ads do a lot of damage, they don't articulate a coherent message and they turn a lot of voters on the ground off. In 2004, for example, John Kerry engineered a come-from-behind victory in Iowa against Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean as the two candidates sparred with ferocious, negative ads.

(2) Newt Gingrich has a positive message.
As mentioned before, Newt Gingrich has sought to promote his record on deficits and job creation as Speaker of the House. This is a message that may resonate with Republican voters. Gingrich should articulate this message more clearly. Negative attacks only create momentum in politics when the positive message is not coming through.

(3) The polling does not reflect on-the-ground organization, and possible conservative Christian turnout.
Conservative Christians propelled Mike Huckabee to victory in 2008. Furthermore, the Iowa contest is a caucus instead of a primary, which means organizing voters to show up is a key factor. While some speculate that Rick Santorum, a favorite of social conservatives and the number two choice of many Republican caucus-goers, could engineer a victory, Gingrich may also gain a healthy share of the Iowa conservative Christian vote.

Our Recommendation
Unveil a new, memorable plan very soon - along the lines of a "21st Century Contract for America." The ad market has been saturated with considerable money, and the Gingrich campaign does not have the resources to compete. However, it could dominate the debate in the next few days if it puts out a bold, positive plan that highlights Gingrich's message and puts his opponents on the defensive.

This is not to say that Newt Gingrich would win, or that we endorse any candidate in any party. His campaign is right that Gingrich can be content with a lower-place finish in Iowa and a strong finish in South Carolina because Ron Paul's momentum will likely stop in Iowa and Mitt Romney still cannot resonate with the Republican electorate. We are just saying that, for the reasons stated above, you should not count him out of a first place finish in Iowa.

Will SOPA/PROTECT IP Pass? Senate Strategy Memo

2011-12-23T17:36:00.001-08:00

Floor Fight Memo
FROM: Unanimous Consent Senate Watch
TO: Senators Ron Wyden, Maria Cantwell, Jerry Moran, et al
SUBJECT: Will SOPA/PROTECT IP Pass In The U.S. Senate?
DATE: December 23, 2011

Background:
(1) The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its Senate counterpart, PROTECT IP gained considerable bipartisan support in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate.
(2) Supporters framed the legislation as protecting jobs and innovation by preventing online piracy from taking revenues from online content creators, while opponents argued that the restrictive nature of the legislation stifled innovation and creative output on the internet.
(3) PROTECT IP passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a unanimous vote, but Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) put a public "hold" on the legislation (he would object to all unanimous consent agreements to expedite the legislation).
(4) To overcome this, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced a 60-vote cloture motion to limit debate. Senator Reid proposed that the initial debate on the legislation take place on January 24.
(5) Senators Ron Wyden, Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Jerry Moran (R-KS) co-sponsored the OPEN Act, which is intended as a sort of weaker compromise.

This memo addresses (a) whether PROTECT IP can pass in the Senate (b) what procedural/political options are available for opponents of SOPA/PROTECT IP in the Senate and (c) our recommendation.

Will It Pass In The Senate?
PROTECT IP has 40 bipartisan co-sponsors in the Senate, which means that it could easily clear procedural hurdles to its passage. At this point, there is considerable momentum towards passage, but opponents have effectively used the internet to direct outrage about the bill towards Capitol Hill and organize opposition. The sooner supporters move on the bill, the more likely it will pass. The later opponents can push back the bill, the less likely it will pass. The more opponents stall, the more Senators will feel uncomfortable with supporting the bill and increase their support of an amendment or compromise. While it it less likely to stop the bill outright, opponents can significantly dilute the content of the bill or substitute a compromise measure.

Opponents have the following options: count on President Obama to veto the bill, filibuster the bill, significantly amend the bill, or introduce a compromise measure.

Option 1: Count on President Obama to veto SOPA/PROTECT IP.
PROS
A. Would increase the hurdle in both houses of Congress to two-thirds.
B. Would buy opponents more time and bring more attention to the issue.
CONS
A. President Obama may not have the political capital to veto bipartisan legislation in a re-election year with divided government and a razor-sharp focus on jobs.
B. Would not resolve any of the legitimate debate over online piracy and would ensure that supporters can simply re-group and fight back at a better time.

Option 2: "Filibuster" PROTECT IP through various obstruction tactics.
PROS
A. Would create a huge uproar on the Internet and in the news.
B. Would create a sufficient delay to make a compromise or amended bill more plausible.
CONS
A. Could irritate Senators, the President, key interest groups and deprive Sen. Wyden of political capital
B. Would take energy and cooperation from multiple Senators to sustain, and would require constant attention to the Senate floor during the debate to prevent any maneuvers to expedite debate.

Option 3: Significantly amend the bill to dilute its character.
PROS
A. It would be a plausible alternative for Senators who agree with the basic premise of SOPA or PROTECT IP, but recognize the considerable public sentiment against the legislation.
B. It is less of a hurdle than engineering a vote against the bill.
CONS
A. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could use the priority of floor recognition accorded to the Majority Leader to "fill the tree," thereby dominating the amendment process.
B. Would not fully satisfy either side.

Option 4: Introduce a compromise measure.
PROS
A. Can be introduced during the debate on SOPA/PROTECT IP as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, in which Senator Wyden's OPEN Act or another piece of legislation could be substituted for all or part of PROTECT IP on the floor.
B. If crafted carefully, could re-frame the debate on online piracy on Capitol Hill and attract Senators in the middle, thereby directing momentum away from PROTECT IP and towards a compromise.
CONS
A. May not sufficiently please enough people on either extreme of the issue to be viable.
B. Would be difficult to get the general public/internet advocates who have made much noise about SOPA in the past to get behind any sort of compromise on online piracy.

Recommendation
(1) Some combination of options 2, 3, and 4 could go a long way towards weakening PROTECT IP. (2) The goal of opponents should be to seek an acceptable compromise instead of trying to destroy the bill, which is likely politically impossible.

Tactics
(1) Craft and improve a viable alternative and seek to publicize and fight for this alternative through the amendment process with an amendment in the nature of a substitute described above.

(2) Use filibuster tactics to buy time to mobilize general opposition and draw attention to the issue. These tactics include: a. objecting to unanimous consent requests b. prolonged debate and speeches c. a series of amendments meant to dilute the bill or impede its progress.

Check out this OpenCongress article that backs up our point that time is on the side of the opposition:
Six GOP Co-Sponsors of PIPA Ask Reid To Cancel Vote

(3) Re-frame the issue. One of the reasons the supporters of PROTECT IP are winning is because they appear to be on the side of job-creating/economically beneficial legislation. Opponents should use this rhetoric themselves and fight back on the details.

(4) Re-frame the issue for conservatives. One of the supporters of the alternative OPEN Act, along with Senators Ron Wyden and Maria Cantwell, is Tea Party Senator Jerry Moran. Tea Party Senators often work together to fight against bills that they see as unnecessary government intrusion. In addition, the Heritage Foundation opposes the bills on the same grounds. Enough conservative Senators could make PROTECT IP much harder to pass if the issue is framed in those terms.

(5) Work hard to mobilize the internet-surfing public, especially young people, behind an eventual resolution. It is crucial that compromise and a diluted bill can be made acceptable to this crowd, and that is it clear that general opposition to PROTECT IP will go nowhere.

Mintaro Oba's LinkedIn - Aspiring North Korea Expert

No, The Jobs Bill Doesn't Highlight The Senate's Culture of Failure

2011-10-12T14:02:00.000-07:00

Today The Washington Post carries an article entitled "Jobs Bill Highlights Senate's Culture of Failure."

According to the article:

The failure of President Obama’s jobs proposal highlights Washington’s current culture of gridlock, transforming the Senate from a balky, but functional, legislative body into a strange theater of failure.

As the premier Senate/Capitol Hill blog on the web, we feel compelled to respond to this terrible opinion piece in one of our nation's newspapers of record. Here's why we wouldn't change a thing about the Senate:

(1) The 60 vote threshold is absolutely necessary to protect minority rights.
We typically expect a majority party in the Senate to come in with somewhere between 51 and 60 seats. It would therefore be easy to pass and restrict debate on any measure solely with majority party votes. This may be OK in the House of Representatives, but our system of constitutional checks and balances requires that somewhere in the legislative system there should be an opportunity for the minority party to be heard. The 60-vote threshold forces the majority party to moderate its bills and negotiate with the minority party. It puts greater emphasis on individual moderate Senators in both parties. Like anything else, the failure of the Senate is a failure of politics and human nature. Don't blame an institution that preserves vital safeguards. Remember - everyone is in the minority sometimes.

(2) There is nothing particularly legitimate about a 51 vote victory.
We talk about 51 votes as if it is the essence of democracy and representation. Not true. Think about it - what would be the most legitimate form of representation? It would be unanimous consent, where every single voice counted in the outcome. That would be 100 votes in the Senate. Now, on the other end of the spectrum, what would be the most efficient outcome that still involved "most" of the voices? It would be 51 votes. The 51 vote margin has not been endowed with any particular legitimacy. The Senate rightly balances legitimate consensus and efficiency with a 60 vote margin. This is American democracy. It SHOULD be hard to pass a bill.

(3) The House of Representatives is always more obstructionist than the Senate.
People who dislike the way the Senate operates often call it obstructionist and point favorably to the House, which appears to consider everything quickly and with an up or down vote. In fact, the House is more obstructionist than the Senate. Most people don't realize it because obstruction in the House of Representatives is built into the rules and happens before anything reaches the floor.

Want to know how you pass a bill in the House of Representatives? First, you can use unanimous consent, which obviously requires complete consensus and is used very infrequently. Secondly, you can use suspension of the rules to pass uncontroversial measures such as naming post offices, which requires a two-thirds vote of the entire House of Representatives. But if you want something considered with a majority vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, you need to go through the House Rules Committee. This is a committee consisting of 9 members of the majority party and 4 members of the minority party. The committee is tasked with reporting a "rule" for each piece of legislation that it likes. This controls the time for debate and exactly what amendments may be offered. The amendments are often the only chance for the minority party to be heard on a bill, but the committee can completely lock the minority party out of the amendment process through a "closed rule."

So, compare this with the Senate. In the Senate, you can use parliamentary procedure to be heard, but a measure that has 60 votes will pass. This is 60% of the whole Senate. In the House, to get majority consideration, you need to get approval from a committee that has 9 loyal members of the majority party and only 4 members of the minority party before even reaching the floor. This is about 70% of a committee that is practically an arm of the Speaker's office. This renders individual representatives and members of the minority party effectively pointless.

To us, this looks more "obstructionist" than Senate behavior.

(4) There was somehow something wrong or illegitimate about the failure of the American Jobs Act in the Senate yesterday.
The Washington Post's article comes in the wake of the failure of the American Jobs Act to clear the 60 vote cloture rule. But what is surprising about this? Senate Democrats surely knew that they couldn't get the 7+ additional Republican votes to pass a version of the American Jobs Act that they didn't really negotiate with the Republicans. Yesterday's move was supposed to put Republicans on the record in opposition to the American Jobs Act so that Democrats could campaign against their votes.

Further, it's not fair to single out the Senate's "culture" and rules because of yesterday's failure. How far do you think the same bill would have gone in the House of Representatives.

Opponents of the Senate must take a closer look at the reality of Congress and learn to respect the traditions of the world's greatest deliberative body.

Did Senator Reid Invoke The Nuclear Option? Senate Procedure Analysis

2011-10-06T17:56:00.000-07:00

Today Senator Harry Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell had a bit of a fight over offering amendments to a China currency manipulation bill. The resulting vote will change the way the Senate operates. We'e heard lots of false claims, so we want to set the record straight with a procedure guide to what happened.

(1) First of all, what Senator Harry Reid used was nothing remotely close to the "nuclear option." It did not change any filibuster or voting traditions.

(2) Instead, Senator Reid's maneuver affects amendments offered after any filibuster should have ended with "cloture," which is a timetable to end debate invoked with 60 votes in the Senate.

(3) Furthermore, the maneuver had absolutely nothing to do with the consideration of the American Jobs Act, but with the bill dealing with Chinese currency manipulation.

Here's exactly what happened on the Senate floor that day in terms of procedure. We're the only ones to get it right.

Cloture Invoked
The Senate had earlier invoked cloture on a bill dealing with Chinese currency/exchange rate manipulation. Cloture creates a timeline to end debate on a bill. Once cloture has been invoked, irrelevant amendments are out of order. Further, all first and second degree amendments must be offered by a certain time. Before cloture is invoked, amendments may be considered not withstanding these rules.

Motion To Suspend The Rules
In order to have further amendments considered during this time, Senators need to file motions to suspend the provisions of Rule 22 of the Standing Rules of the Senate (the formal articulation of the cloture rule. The motion to suspend the rules waives the provisions of certain rules if agreed to through a two-thirds vote, but it was rarely used to circumvent cloture rules until recently. Republicans had inundated the bill under consideration with non-germane amendments considered under this bill and in violation of the timetable to end debate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (generously, in our opinion) agreed on seven non-germane Republican amendments that could be considered under this unusual parliamentary procedure.

Unanimous Consent
The conflict erupted when Senator Reid asked for unanimous consent to have seven amendments considered under suspension of the cloture rules and Senator McConnell objected on the grounds that Senator Reid had substituted a different Republican amendment for an amendment that the two had agreed to consider under the rules.

Point of Order To Change the Senate Precedents
Here's where it gets hairy: The Senate operates under both formalized rules and precedents. The easiest way to understand it is to analogize: think of the rules as the exact text of the Constitution and the precedents as the rulings of the Supreme Court on interpretation.

Senator Reid therefore brought up the motion to suspend the rules on one of Senator Tom Coburn's amendments and raised a point of order against it on the grounds that using the motion to suspend the rules to force consideration of non-germane amendments after the cloture timeline for ending debate has been invoked. The Chair ruled against this point of order, at which point a vote of the Senate overruled his judgment.

Therefore, the Senate is today left with a momentous new precedent: motions to suspend the rules for post-cloture consideration of non-germane amendments are now dilatory.

Feel free to send your questions and comments to us.

Senate Rejects Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act Because of Natural Disaster Spending

2011-09-12T17:27:00.000-07:00

The Senate today failed to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act (H.J. Res. 66), an annual measure that has imposed import restrictions on the country of Burma/Myanmar for its violations of norms of democracy and freedom. The measure was intended to serve as a vehicle for additional natural disaster funding in the wake of the recent hurricans and tropical storms.

Last year, the Senate agreed to the bill 99-1 (Senator Michael Enzi, R - Wyoming, was the sole holdout). However, the 53 yeas the bill garnered was not enough to end debate on the motion to proceed. Republican Senators Dan Coats (Indiana, Susan Collins (Maine), and Olympia Snowe (Maine) joined Democrats to provide the 53 votes. The 33 nays were all Republican Senators, and 14 Senators did not vote.

Senator Harry Reid (Majority Leader, D- Nevada) moved the vote on the non-controversial Burma bill to show that opponents were voting against the bill solely for the purpose of denying natural disaster funding. Last week Senator Reid indicated that he could move an emergency relief bill as a stand-alone bill in the Senate. This may be his next move. This comes in the wake of controversial comments House Majority Leader Eric Cantor made during Hurricane Irene that indicated that disaster relief would have to be tied to spending cuts.

The Senate is scheduled to resume consideration of the motion to proceed to this bill at 10 am tomorrow.

Senate Schedule: Monday, September 12

2011-09-11T20:02:00.000-07:00

2 pm: The Senate will convene and begin a period of morning business.

The Senate will then resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.J. Res 66, a joint resolution that renews import restrictions on Burma/Myanmar as a result of its violations of democratic norms.

5:30pm: The vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.J. Res 66, setting a timetable to end debate on the motion and bring it to a future vote, will occur at this time.

Procedural notes: Under Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a quorum is mandatory before cloture is invoked. This requirement has been waived by unanimous consent.

Check out other recent posts:
Senate Takes First Step Under Debt Ceiling Deal

Will President Obama's 'American Jobs Act' Pass? - Floor Fight Analysis

Senate Takes First Step Under Debt Ceiling Deal

2011-09-09T21:45:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Senate acted today under the debt ceiling deal hashed out this summer in a largely symbolic vote on a "resolution of disapproval." If passed, the resolution of disapproval could have gone to the President's desk and required him to veto in order to raise the debt ceiling.

Senate Democrats blocked the resolution at one of the very first stops in the legislative process - the motion to proceed to the consideration of the measure. The resolution of disapproval took the form of a "joint resolution," which is procedurally no different from a bill in the Senate.

Vote results below. Other recent posts: Floor Fight Analysis: Will President Obama's American Jobs Act Pass?

Here are the vote results on the bill: 45 yeas, 52 nays

Senators not voting:
Jay Rockefeller (D - West Virginia)
Marco Rubio (R- Florida)
Jim Webb (D - Virginia)

Democrats voting to move the resolution forward:
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)

Republicans voting to move the resolution forward:
Lamar Alexander (R- Tennessee)
Kelly Ayotte (R- New Hampshire)
John Barrasso (R- Wyoming)
Roy Blunt (R- Missouri)
John Boozman (R- Arkansas)
Richard Burr (R- North Carolina)
Saxby Chambliss (R- Georgia)
Dan Coats (R- Indiana)
Tom Coburn (R- Oklahoma)
Thad Cochran (R- Mississippi)
Susan Collins (R- Maine)
John Cornyn (R- Texas)
Mike Crapo (R- Idaho)
Jim DeMint (R- South Carolina)
Mike Enzi (R- Wyoming)
Lindsey Graham (R- South Carolina)
Chuck Grassley (R- Iowa)
Orrin Hatch (R- Utah)
Dean Heller (R- Nevada)
John Hoeven (R- North Dakota)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R- Texas)
Jim Inhofe (R- Oklahoma)
Johnny Isakson (R- Georgia)
Mike Johanns (R- Nebraska)
Ron Johnson (R- Wisconsin)
Mark Kirk (R- Illinois)
Jon Kyl (R- Arizona)
Mike Lee (R- Utah)
Richard Lugar (R- Indiana)
John McCain (R- Arizona)
Mitch McConnell (R- Kentucky)
Jerry Moran (R- Kansas)
Lisa Murkowski (R- Alaska)
Rand Paul (R- Kentucky)
Rob Portman (R- Ohio)
Jim Risch (R- Idaho)
Pat Roberts (R- Kansas)
Jeff Sessions (R- Alabama)
Richard Shelby (R- Alabama)
Olympia Snowe (R- Maine)
John Thune (R- South Dakota)
Pat Toomey (R- Pennsylvania)
David Vitter (R- Louisiana)
Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi)

Republicans Voting Against:
Bob Corker (Tennessee)
Scott Brown (Massachusetts)

Democrats Voting Against:
Daniel Akaka (D- Hawaii)
Max Baucus (D- Montana)
Mark Begich (D- Alaska)
Michael Bennet (D- Colorado)
Jeff Bingaman (D- New Mexico)
Richard Blumenthal (D- Connecticut)
Barbara Boxer (D- California)
Sherrod Brown (D- Ohio)
Maria Cantwell (D- Washington)
Benjamin Cardin (D- Maryland)
Tom Carper (D- Delaware)
Bob Casey (D- Pennsylvania)
Kent Conrad (D- North Dakota)
Chris Coons (D- Delaware)
Dick Durbin (D- Illinois)
Dianne Feinstein (D- California)
Al Franken (D- Minnesota)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D- New York)
Kay Hagan (D- North Carolina)
Tom Harkin (D- Iowa)
Daniel Inouye (D- Hawaii)
Tim Johnson (D- South Dakota)
John Kerry (D- Massachusetts)
Amy Klobuchar (D- Minnesota)
Herb Kohl (D- Wisconsin)
Mary Landrieu (D- Louisiana)
Frank Lautenberg (D- New Jersey)
Patrick Leahy (D- Vermont)
Carl Levin (D- Michigan)
Joe Lieberman (ID - Connecticut)
Joe Manchin (D- West Virginia)
Claire McCaskill (D- Missouri)
Bob Menendez (D- New Jersey)
Jeff Merkley (D- Oregon)
Barbara Mikulski (D- Maryland)
Patty Murray (D- Washington)
Bill Nelson (D- Florida)
Mark Pryor (D- Arkansas)
Jack Reed (D- Rhode Island)
Harry Reid (D- Nevada)
Bernie Sanders (I- Vermont)
Chuck Schumer (D- New York)
Jeanne Shaheen (D- New Hampshire)
Debbie Stabenow (D- Michigan)
Jon Tester (D- Montana)
Mark Udall (D- Colorado)
Tom Udall (D- New Mexico)
Mark Warner (D- Virginia)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D- Rhode Island)
Ron Wyden (D- Oregon)

Will The American Jobs Act Pass? - Floor Fight Analysis

2011-09-09T21:20:00.001-07:00

The President tried to signal a strong focus on jobs with his speech to a joint session of Congress yesterday. In it, he bluntly asked Congress to pass his American Jobs Act. He outlined several center-leaning ideas in his speech that Republicans have supported in the past. See description of the bill: The American Jobs Act

Political Aims: A Clintonian Strategy
With the American Jobs Act, the President hopes to repeat the strategy of President Bill Clinton after the 1994 Republican takeover of the House:
(1) Take the center ground, making the opposition appear extreme if it doesn't give his ideas a fair hearing. Solidify his position with centrist swing voters and have a legislative work product to campaign on.
(2) Acknowledge and use proposals from the other side, making it harder for the opposition to obstruct legislation for partisan purposes
(3) Split the other camp, isolating the moderates from the extremists.

Is It A Win-Win?
The President has a good chance of succeeding with this strategy. Most Americans want to get behind a jobs package that appears centrist. The President's proposals are the only proposals on the table at the moment. If the bill passes, the President has a significant legislative victory relating to jobs under his belt. If Republicans knock it down, the President can make a campaign against Congress in the election.

What About The Senate?
An earlier version of this post operated under the assumption that most of the action would be in the House. However, the bill has moved first in the Senate instead. With the ratio of Democrats and Republicans, there was simply no way that the bill was going to get the margin for cloture (60 votes). This clearly suggests that the President and Democrats are trying to draw Republicans out and dare them to block the bill in its earliest stages so that Democrats can rally around it.

What Can The Republicans Do?
(1) Use the House to bring an alternative package up for consideration.
This would blunt any arguments that the Republicans are simply the "party of no" and put Republican job creation proposals squarely against the American Job Act.

(2) Fundamentally change the character of the bill through the amendment process.
Republicans may hope to use the House to add proposals to the bill that will make it unacceptable to Democrats or force the President to veto his own bill. Politico reports that House Republicans have sent a letter to President Obama suggesting that each part of the bill be subject to scrutiny on its own. This means that Republicans understand that they will suffer if they don't appear to give the President's bill a fair hearing, but that they can use the procedures of the House to muddle the issue significantly. In this case the House will want to actually pass a version of the bill and work with Senate Republicans.

(3) Simply reject the bill in the House of Representatives.
This is the least likely outcome because it gives the President and the Democrats the upper hand and allows them to campaign on the bill.

Conclusions
(1) The American Jobs Act has a moderate chance of passage - despite the divided Congress, whether it's a dead letter depends on forthcoming political maneuvers outlined above.
(2)If the President is serious about passage, it is absolutely crucial that he split off a group of moderate Republicans.
(3) The best Republican strategies are to split up the bill and debate each portion, pass the bill with unacceptable alterations (forcing a Presidential veto or Congressional deadlock), or both.
(4) The Democrats must move quickly, have the bill considered in its entirety, and be willing to allow opposition amendments made in good faith. Democrats need to do everything in their power to prevent the bill from getting so defaced that the President could contemplate a veto. If the bill dies, Democrats will want to make it clear that they did everything in their power to pass a clean bill in good faith.

Mintaro Oba's LinkedIn - Aspiring North Korea Expert

The American Jobs Act So Far

2011-09-09T20:42:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the President urged a joint session of Congress to pass his "American Jobs Act." The proposals have not been put into legislative form yet (Politico reports it might take one or two weeks), but this is the list of proposals so far as we know:

(1) Tax credits for small businesses that hire people.
(2) Funds and improvements targeted towards infrastructure and competitiveness to create opportunities for employment.
(3) Reforming the unemployment insurance system, building on a Georgia system Republicans have championed that brings people back to work.
(4) Cutting payroll tax in half, which "will provide a tax cut of $1,500 to the typical family earning $50,000 a year" (The White House).
(5) A detailed deficit reduction package to fully fund the American Jobs Act. It would ask wealthy Americans to share the sacrifice through tax policy. It would build on policies that have been circulating for months - reforming the tax code/closing tax loopholes, spending cuts, and reforms to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

What Will President Obama's Job Speech Look Like?

2011-09-08T15:31:00.000-07:00

President Obama is scheduled to speak on jobs at 7pm tonight. While we will have a follow up post, here are some guesses about what the speech will look like. The first two are pretty plausible, and the second two are just guesses:

1. The President will take the center ground.
One of the President's biggest problems has been an inability to get any sort of bipartisan action in Congress. Therefore, he will probably want to either co-opt some Republican ideas or refer to proposals that have gained bipartisan support in the past. If he succeeds and Congressional Republicans oppose the proposals, he could go into the campaign saying that Republicans prioritize obstruction over ideas that they themselves support.

2. The President will continue the theme he invoked in his debt ceiling debate - compromise a la Henry Clay.
The President will likely deride the partisan atmosphere of Congress and frame himself as a compromiser focused on the national interest and frame Republicans as purely political creatures.

3. The President could invoke "competitiveness."
While this, in our opinion, would be a bad idea, "competitiveness" is an idea that has gained a lot of currency with members of the Obama administration. It was the dominant theme of President Obama's most recent State of the Union address. President Obama could use it to hint at concerns about the U.S. relative position in the world and a rising China and promote policies ranging from education to green jobs.

4. Green jobs.
The President tried to tie the concern over jobs and momentum for energy/environmental legislation together during his first campaign, leading some of us to think that he was going to push a package that involved so-called "green jobs" instead of the eventual health care reform legislation. With the increasing influence of Senate stars like John Kerry, President Obama may be willing to include a green jobs message again.

If so, President Obama might have to explain his recent, bewildering move on loosening smog regulations. Perhaps he would use it to play the compromise card, saying that since he is willing to back away from Democratic priorities for the national interest, Republicans should support him on a green jobs proposal.

A Lesson in Senate Procedure for Herman Cain: How Impeachment Really Works

2011-08-18T00:40:00.000-07:00

Presidential candidate Herman Cain has made headlines for telling a group of bloggers that impeaching President Obama would be a "great thing." Without commenting on the merits of any impeachment, we wanted to point out further comments that Cain made about the Senate's role in impeachment that suggests he doesn't understand exactly how the process works.

Specifically (according to Politico):
"That’s a great question and it is a great — it would be a great thing to do but because the Senate is controlled by Democrats we would never be able to get the Senate first to take up that action, because they simply don’t care what the American public thinks. They would protect him and they wouldn’t even bring it up," Cain said, citing the administration's position on the Defense of Marriage Act as an impeachable offense.

… There are a number of things where a case could be made in order to impeach him, but because Republicans do not control the United States Senate, they would never allow it to get off the ground."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61518.html#ixzz1VLG1HM6V

Herman Cain's suggestion that the Senate Democrats "wouldn't even bring [an impeachment of President Obama] up" betrays a lack of understanding about the House and Senate roles in impeachment. Since one of the things this blog does is convey the complex elements of Senate procedure and history for the general public, and because impeachment is such an important thing to understand, we hope to shed some light on how the process actually works.

(1) Only the House can impeach.
While the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate are part of the same system, their roles are substantially different. Impeachment is solely the prerogative of the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives
introduces articles of impeachment (basically an indictment in the judicial sense), and members of the House serve as the "managers" of the impeachment. These managers gather evidence, present their findings to the Senate, and examine witnesses at trial.

(2) Only the Senate can try the impeachment.
The smaller size, longer terms, and more dignified character of the U.S. Senate makes it appropriate to act as the judge and jury. When the House is ready with the articles of impeachment, the Senate receives the House managers of the impeachment. At 1 o'clock on the day following the presentation of the articles by the House managers (or before by order of the Senate), the Senate will proceed to consider the articles and continue until final judgment has been rendered. Therefore, Senate Democrats can't just stop an impeachment from the House from gaining a proper trial in the Senate.

(3) It requires two-thirds of the members present to convict on an article of impeachment. The Constitution further requires that judgment be made on the basis of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

(4) When the President or the Vice President is on trial, the Chief Justice of the United States presides.

(5)The impeachment proceedings can be directed to a special committee, which will operate on the same procedures as a full impeachment trial unless ordered otherwise by the Senate.

(6)The Senate operates on 26 special rules that govern the impeachment trial process, which are clarified by several additional precedents.
Anyone who watches Senate proceedings regularly would be shocked at how differently the Senate acts as a court of trial. In the normal Senate, the job of presiding officer is usually delegated to a newer member. Senators come and go as they please and only mingle together during roll call votes. Those votes might take 15 minutes or more with Senators likely to signal their yea or nay vote to a clerk.

During an impeachment trial, the President Pro Tempore (the most senior member of the majority party, currently Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii) is more likely to preside. The Senate becomes shockingly quiet and dignified. In front of the dais where the prseiding officer, the clerks, and additional staff sit are two semicircular desks. On one side sit the House managers, acting as the prosecution. On the other side is the defense legal team. In front of each person is a glass of tall ice water. The Senate can issue subpoenas, and defense and prosecution alike can question witnesses and present evidence. A Senator wishing to present his or her own question must do it in writing through the presiding officer. All Senators must swear an oath.

When the vote on the first article of impeachment comes, Senators sit very somberly at their desks as the roll is called alphabetically. When a Senator's name is called, the Senator will rise from the desk, say "Guilty" or "Not Guilty," and sit back down. This process continues through each article of impeachment.

Senate impeachment proceedings are probably the most well-attended proceedings of the Senate. However, the Senate has excused Senators from attending before. In the trial of Alcee L. Hastings, a United States District Judge from Florida who is now a member of the House of Representatives and its Rules Committee, four members of the Senate who were in the House of Representatives at the time that the House voted on the articles of impeachment were excused.

Senate Passes Temporary FAA Extension Bill By Unanimous Consent

2011-08-05T12:00:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Senate temporarily broke a deadlock between the House and the Senate on a bill reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration. The inability of the House and Senate to agree on the matter led to the furloughing of 4,000 federal employees and 70,000 construction workers, as well as the loss of millions of dollars in revenue from airline ticket taxes.

The extension runs through September 16, at which point the House and the Senate may fight over reauthorization again.

Here are the issues which caused the deadlock:

(1)Rural Flight Subsidies
The House GOP wanted to cut $16 million dollars in subsidies to 13 rural airports around the country. The House GOP portrayed it as a deficit cutting move, while Senate Democrats insisted that the GOP simply introduced this issue to gain leverage in negotiations on the main sticking point -- labor issues. The loss of revenue from ticket taxes in these few weeks of disagreement would exceed the cost to the government from rural subsidies.

(2)Labor: National Mediation Board
The real sticking point in the House-Senate conference on the FAA bill appears to be labor. The National Mediation Board is a government agency that regulates labor in the airline and railroad industries and provides guidelines for resolving labor disputes. Republicans want to maintain a rule providing for 51 percent of all employees to be able to vote and form a union. Democrats assert that only a majority of the people actually having the election should be necessary to form a union.

Delta Airlines
Both Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia) and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) have called attention the the role of Delta Airlines in this fight. Delta and Northwest recently merged. Northwest has a union shop while Delta is a non-union shop. Isakson implied that Democrats were acting out of spite towards Delta's non-union policy, while Rockefeller suggested that House GOP members were allied with Delta and anti-union forces.

A Compromise?
Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who has been appointed one of the conferees between the House and the Senate on the FAA bill has suggested that the Republicans and Democrats could find common ground on the NMB by allowing judicial review of NMB decisions. Since we're not specialists in labor law, it's not clear what exactly this would entail. However, Isakson has noted that the National Labor Relations Act has a similar provision, and we think this could be a good starting point for the resumption of this battle in six weeks.

Is Congress Losing The Art of Compromise?

2011-08-03T18:09:00.000-07:00

Above: Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn (D-TX), who said "Any jack--- can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one."

The late Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn exuded the color and character that once graced Capitol Hill. As an alternating Speaker of the House and House Minority Leader during the Roosevelt years and the 1950s, everyone referred to him as Mr. Sam. After work, he would duck away to a quiet location in the Capitol called the "Board of Education," where he would down bourbon and munch on raw Texas vidalia onions from a barrel right next to the table.

While Speaker Rayburn crystallized his power over the House of Representatives, he never forgot that the primary function of the majority and the minority was the governance of the United States. Freshman member Tip O'Neill, who went on to become Speaker during the late 1970s and through the Reagan administration, remembers what Mr. Sam had to say when he became Minority Leader after the Republicans took over the House:

Any jack--- can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one.

Under Minority Leader Rayburn, his party would protect its rights but share the burden of governance. Members of Congress come to Washington to build a better country, not to lead a revolution. And Speaker Tip O'Neill, the liberal Democrat from Massachusetts who featured that quote in his book, Man of the House, worked with Ronald Reagan to push through some significant initiatives on taxes. O'Neill and Reagan agreed that they would battle it out each workday, but after 6pm, both would be friends.

As the Senate and House enter a period of recess following the debt ceiling fight, we'll use this blog to tell you about leaders from all parties and both chambers of Congress (with an emphasis on the Senate) who have put the national interest first.

Here are some preliminary ideas:
Henry Clay
Edmund Ross
Richard Russell
Gerald Ford
Everett Dirksen

We hope to hear your thoughts on this and more. Do you want your Senators and Representatives to kick down the barn, or do you want to elect carpenters who will build the barn?

Final Vote Results, S.365, Budget Control Act of 2011

2011-08-02T12:27:00.000-07:00

The following 7 Democrats joined a group of 19 conservative Republicans to vote against the deal: Frank Lautenberg (New Jersey), Bob Menendez (New Jersey), Jeff Merkley (Oregon), Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Tom Harkin (Iowa)

Yeas: 74
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

Nays: 26
Ayotte (R-NH)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
DeMint (R-SC)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lee (R-UT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Moran (R-KS)
Nelson (D-NE)
Paul (R-KY)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)

Senate: S.365, Budget Control Act of 2011

2011-08-01T18:28:00.000-07:00

At 9:30am Tuesday, the Senate will convene and begin consideration of the House message to accompany S.365, the Budget Control Act of 2011. This is the bill that passed the House today.

The House took an existing Senate bill that had been referred to a House committee and added the Budget Control Act as a substitute amendment. This means that the amendment strikes everything in the original bill and inserts the language of the debt ceiling deal (the original bill was Senator Tom Harkin's bill to make a technical amendment to the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. Therefore, the Senate's task will simply be to concur in the amendment.

The Senate should have more than enough votes to concur with the House. No votes may come from Tea Party Senators like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jim DeMint, and others - but the broad majority of the Democrats and Republicans will vote for the bill. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) may also vote against the bill.

We'll have more updates as time limits are set and the Senate votes on the substitute.

Vote Results, Cloture Motion on Reid Amendment to S.627 - Debt Ceiling Proposal

2011-07-31T13:04:00.000-07:00

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)

Senators Reid and McConnell Should Have Used Gang of Six As Basis for Bipartisan Deal

2011-07-30T05:49:00.000-07:00

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.

Congressional Timetable: Debt Ceiling Debate S.679 and S.1323

2011-07-30T05:24:00.000-07:00

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.

Senate Agenda: Tuesday, July 26 - Nominations and the Debt Ceiling

2011-07-26T03:57:00.000-07:00

(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.

House Democrats Need Their Own "Cut, Cap, and Balance" Moment

2011-07-22T18:41:00.000-07:00

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

Senate Procedure: How Unanimous Consent Works

2011-07-21T09:09:00.000-07:00

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 :)

Senate Procedure: How Filling The Tree Works

2011-07-20T02:01:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-07-20T01:24:00.000-07:00

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