Senate debate on Iraq for Frid & Sat, Feb 16 & 17

[TayTay]

The Senate has decided to debate the war on Iraq after all. However, since this is the Senate, it will be done in a round about way so as to deal with the arcane rules that govern the Senate. (Oy vey!) Sen. Harry Reid announced this evening that he has scheduled a cloture vote on whether or not to bring House Resolution 63, the one that the House is currently debating, to the floor of the Senate after recess week. (Yes, this is another debate about whether or not to debate. Don't complain about the rules, resistance is futile.)

So, there will be a cloture vote or a vote on whether or not to shut off debate and actually proceed with calling the bill up for actual debate on the floor of the Senate. (Still with me?) Should this get 60 votes, the number needed to shut down a filibuster, then the actual House bill will come before the Senate the week of Feb 26th and that would mean even more debate on the War in Iraq. (Yeah!!!!) Ahm, still with me here? I believe this is the bill in question: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c1101J4MUl::

We are actually no farther along on the debate about the debate than we were last week. Sen. Reid wants to bring up the House Res, cuz it is a very 'clean bill' without any messy side arrangements. Sen. McConnell, the Senate Republican Minority Leader hates the nice clean bill because he greatly fears that a lot of his Senators will vote for it and embarrass him and the President. (The House Bill expressed disapproval of the troop escalation and does so in under 100 words. Very unSenate like.)

Sen. McConnell wants to bring up the McCain bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:5:./temp/~c1101J4MUl::
And is mightily miffed that he might not be able to because Sen. Reid, as is his michevious right, might be 'filling the trees' on this and there would be no room for this as an amendment and no room for the amendment that Sen. Gregg from NH wants to introduce that says that Congress has no intention of ever shutting off funds for the war. (Cheeky little monkey. Imagine intoducing that.) Ah, still with me? Good onward.

So, there will be six hours of debate on whether or not to call up the House bill for debate starting on Friday, Feb 16th at 12:30 pm. There will be six hours of debate, equally divided, with alternating half hour periods between Democrats (expcept for Sen. Lieberman) who want to debate the escalation and the war in Iraq and the Republicans (with Lieberman, no doubt) who don't want to debate the war. Then on Sat, Feb 17th, there will be a cloture vote at 1:45 pm that will determine if the Senate gets to debate the bill or if it is still being filibustered. (There, now that is clear as a bell, right?)

This has angered a lot of Senators, some of them Presidential candidates who were supposed to be elsewhere in primary states pledging their undying love to corn-based ethanol and First-in-the-nation primaries and stuff. Too bad. They have all had to move their schedules around or miss one of the biggest votes this year in the Senate. (Sen. Obama has not committed to making it back for this yet. I bet he does though.)

Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see Sen. Kerry on the floor again on this either tomorrow afternoon or Sat morning. So, set the taping devices to stun and keep and eye on C-Span 2.

That's about the best I can do on explaining the debate. It should be a doozy again. I recommend keeping an eye on it, if you can.

[TayTay]

1. What is 'filling the trees' on legislation in the Senate?

Oooh, I'm so glad I asked myself that. It's such a wonky, bordering on 'no one actually needs to know this' kind of question.

'Filling the trees' refers to a process that the Senate Majority leader can use to make sure that a given piece of legislation comes to the Senate without the opportunity for the minority party (or minority opinions) to add amendments to the bill. Sen. Reid will use this procedure should he ever get the chance to bring a real live 'no to the escalation' bill to the floor to block the McCain and Gregg amendments from gumming up the works.

The following is for wonky people: revel in it.


This is the explanation, from 2000: (In Senate rules terminology, 2000 is the day before yesterday. sigh!)

What is the "amendment tree" in the Senate and why does Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) keep filling it? Bethesda, MD - 5/3/00





The "amendment tree" is the colloquial term used to describe the diagram which governs the amending process in the Senate. The diagram shows the possibilities available for offering amendments: the bill under debate is considered the trunk of the tree, and the branches growing out from the trunk illustrate where and in what order amendments can be offered. The House uses the same concept but only has one tree, whereas the Senate has four to choose from, depending on the parliamentary circumstances.

Senator Lott is the Majority Leader of the Senate. In that capacity, he gets favored for recognition over any other Senator. Although it is a very controversial move, Majority Leaders have from time to time used that preferential recognition to offer one amendment after another until all the branches of the amendment tree are full. Until an amendment is voted upon, emptying the branch, no more amendments are in order. This has the effect of shutting out Senators from offering policy alternatives until those favored by the Majority Leader are completed. Majority Leaders have the full procedural right to take advantage of their preferential recognition; however it is not without political cost. Obviously, shutting out other Senators' opportunities to restrict or expand upon the bill text through amendments of their own is controversial. It has often produced resentment -- but also policy victories -- which is why the tactic is still sometimes employed.

The most basic of the four Senate amendment trees permits 3 amendments to be pending simultaneously. The second and third trees permit 5 amendments to be offered. The fourth tree provides for 11, and sometimes 12, amendments to be under consideration at once! Fortunately this latter tree rarely develops. Most of the time, the Senate is content to deal with only 2 or 3 amendments at the same time.

Precise explanation for what the various amendments are at: http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly78.asp

So, in brief, 'filling the tree' is a way to use rules to prevent bad, unlovable and messy amendments from getting on a nice clean bill. It also sounds like something that should be done sparingly, else one might go blind or something. Oy vey! That was so wonky and so involved that even I got confused. I don't mind a bit if you skip it altogether.


EDIT: in the department of things I learned from reading books: Sen McCain in one of his biographies notes how he and Sen. Kerry 'filled the trees' on their resolution that proposed normalizing relations with Vietnam back in the mid 1990's. So, it's not like it's bad, just arcane magic for level 24 or more practicitioners of the dark arts of Senating for a living.

[wisteria]

2. Oh my! I think I will have to go back and study that "tree"diagram

a little more. Thanks though for the update on the debate.

[TayTay]

3. Yeah, that is clear as mud

and not as useful. Hmmm, okay, the legislation is introduced and at the same time, different amendments are also introduced. All three branches of the tree, as in the diagram, are filled. The Senate must vote on them in the order indicated, first 1, then 2, then 3. Because the tree is 'filled' with amendments on each branch, there is no room for other amendments. So, the minority viewpoint is shut out.

Better?

[wisteria]

4. Yeah actually it is. Thanks! n/t

[TayTay]

5. Actually, it looks like railroad tracks to me

That would be the better explanation.

The bill is the station. All those amendment are trains waiting to take off. The diagram means that there are only 3 sets of train tracks available. When they are filled up, no more trains can move onto the station.

Yeah, it's like that.

[ginnyinWI]

6. but in the case of a JK floor speech, I'll have to set my DVR to

"stunning" ;)