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.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Friday, December 30, 2011
Beating Romney: What To Watch For In The Republican Primaries (Romney Can't Win)
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Don't Count Gingrich Out of Iowa
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.
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.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Will SOPA/PROTECT IP Pass? Senate Strategy 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
No, The Jobs Bill Doesn't Highlight The Senate's Culture of Failure
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.
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.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Did Senator Reid Invoke The Nuclear Option? Senate Procedure Analysis
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.
(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.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Senate Rejects Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act Because of Natural Disaster Spending
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)