WP page-one bombshell: 7 GOP Senators will "use every means" to ensure Iraq debate

[DeepModem Mom]

7 GOP Senators Back War Debate
Lawmakers Had Blocked Action on Troop Resolution
By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 8, 2007; Page A01

Senate Republicans who earlier this week helped block deliberations on a resolution opposing President Bush's new troop deployments in Iraq changed course yesterday and vowed to use every tactic at their disposal to ensure a full and open debate.

In a letter distributed yesterday evening to Senate leaders, John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and five other GOP supporters of the resolution threatened to attach their measure to any bill sent to the floor in the coming weeks. Noting that the war is the "most pressing issue of our time," the senators declared: "We will explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate."

The letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was not more specific about the Republican senators' strategy for reviving the war debate. But under the chamber's rules, senators have wide latitude in slowing the progress of legislation and in offering amendments, regardless of whether they have anything to do with the bill.

The letter began circulating yesterday evening after it became apparent the Senate was deadlocked over the war resolution and Reid was prepared to move on to other matters. McConnell and many in his party have aggressively defended their decision to block the bipartisan resolution as an issue of fairness because Democrats would not agree to GOP procedural demands.

But some Republicans were uneasy about appearing to have stymied the debate. The letter appeared so suddenly that, although it was addressed to Reid, the Democratic leader had not seen his copy before Warner read the text on the Senate floor....

***

The other Republican senators who signed the letter were Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Norm Coleman (Minn.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), and George V. Voinovich (Ohio)....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020702550.html

[blonndee]

1. Are they going to try to take the credit for it or what? nt

[Bonobo]

3. If they do, they deserve it.

Dems dropped the ball and the moral high ground on the issue years ago.

[blonndee]

4. They deserve credit after having BLOCKED it a few days ago? n/t

[Bonobo]

6. Well, I overstated a bit to make the point that the Dems have REALLY dissapointed me.

[blonndee]

8. Oh, okay.

I do that sometimes too. And I feel the same way, but let's see how it all evolves now that the Dems actually have a bit of power now. Besides its practical effects, I really hope the stinking repigs won't be able to take credit for the effort, which has undeniably been Democratically-led. Those cheaters.

[Bonobo]

12. Agreed without reservation.

:)

[originalpckelly]

9. No, they blocked it because the spineless little fuckers in the Senate...

who are too fucking chicken to vote on a resolution to cut funding don't want to bring up the Gregg Amendment. The fuckers need to grow a damn spine already.

[blonndee]

11. I'm way behind on this. I need to find out what the Gregg Amendment is

I suppose.

[originalpckelly]

15. Well, he's always doing amendments, remember this is the one about Iraq...

not the one about the line item veto.

[DURHAM D]

7. What are you saying - these same 7 senators after

yapping on the tv for days about their bipartisan resolution then voted along with all other Repugs to not let the resolution come to the floor. Are your actually following this story or are you just trying to be clever?

[originalpckelly]

10. No, that happened, much to my surprise, because weakling Reed...

won't let a resolution from the Republicans on cutting off funding come to the floor. The little weasel is afraid of being called unpatriotic, and so just like before the invasion, they shrank away from confrontation.

[DURHAM D]

20. Gosh - I wish I could live in your black and white world.

It must be so much easier when one does not need to weigh all sides of a complex issue.

How do you feel about the push to turn all of the federal purse strings over to the President that the Repugs want to be a part of Iraq resolution debate?

[robinlynne]

24. wont let a resolution come to the floor. said resolution would take away

congress' power to determine funding for the war. it aint just a resolution. That's not the reason anyway. the republicans blocked it because it would pass. They are demanding a 60% vote, instead of a normal vote.

[originalpckelly]

27. That is a normal vote, don't you ever pay attention to the Senate?

I'm sorry, I referred to the line item veto, when I was talking about Senator Gregg's resolution.

[Purveyor]

2. How many of these "7" are being targeted in the MoveOn.org ads? n/t

[Straight Shooter]

21. Definitely Gordon Smith is in that ad. Probably all of them.

I just watched it this evening on Crooks & Liars, and don't remember every one of them. But I sure noticed my Senator and I almost spontaneously combusted. He better make it right.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

33. I think Warner was targeted in the Anti War one during the Super Bowl. nt

[blonndee]

5. I see now...here's another paragraph

here's some more

Five of the seven Senate signatories to yesterday's letter -- including Warner, the bipartisan resolution's chief author -- had voted Monday to block the debate. By showing party solidarity, they had hoped to pressure Democrats into allowing the consideration of other nonbinding measures, namely two that are more supportive of the administration's policy. But Democratic leaders refused to relent, and the long-awaited war debate -- or at least the opening chapter -- ended almost as soon as it began.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020702550.html

[originalpckelly]

14. If you listen to the blowing Reed (pun intended)...

he said he'd go for the one completely supportive of the President's position, that's not the threat. He doesn't want them voting on the other Republican resolution about cutting off the funding.

[blonndee]

17. Thanks for the info.

Now I know where to start.

I can't believe Reid...I need to spend more time in GDP.

[originalpckelly]

19. Oh, I have never been more fucking outraged...

:nuke:

[fooj]

22. Have you READ the Greg Amendment?

It transfers the POWER of the PURSE from Congress TO THE PRESIDENT. If Congress signs away the right to withhold military funds---it turns over the control of the US MILITARY $$$ to the Executive Branch. Is that what you want?

[robinlynne]

25. exactly!

[originalpckelly]

28. It's the other one, not about the line item veto...

that's a week older than the current one. This is not the Gregg Amendment, I'm terribly sorry, that's the line item veto BS, the Gregg resolution is one which says that the Congress must fund the troops, which the Democrats would vote against to stand up.

[blonndee]

29. Gosh...

Okay, so then when you described what Reid doesn't want to bring to a vote, are you talking about the resolution? That Reid is afraid to appear unpatriotic? And the "line item veto..." is that what would give all the control over the money to Bush? Is that still up for a vote? I'm so confused now. If you have time, can you clarify for me? I've done a little skimming but I'm still not sure I'm clear on what's up. I need to follow this stuff more closely than I have been lately.

[originalpckelly]

31. Yes, the resolution. I was confused because Gregg also has an amendment...

which some have been calling this, but this is the resolution he introduced to call our bluff.

The Gregg amendment is the line item veto (i.e. Republican wet dream.)

The Gregg resolution says that Congress has a duty to fund the troops (which the democrats could vote against to keep their authority.)

Here is the text of the amendment (the line item veto one) from Thomas:

SA 17. Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. DeMint, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Burr, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sessions, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Lott, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Allard, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Craig, Mr. McCain, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Graham, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. Coburn) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 3 proposed by Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Obama, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Durbin) to the bill S. 1, to provide greater transparency in the legislative process; as follows.

At the end, insert the following:


TITLE III--SECOND LOOK AT WASTEFUL SPENDING ACT OF 2007

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Second Look at Wasteful Spending Act of 2007''.

SEC. 302. LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO.

(a) In General.--Title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) is amended by striking part C and inserting the following:



``PART C--LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO

``SEC. 1021. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROPOSED RESCISSIONS.

``(a) Proposed Rescissions.--The President may send a special message, at the time and in the manner provided in subsection (b), that proposes to rescind dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of direct spending, and targeted tax benefits.

``(b) Transmittal of Special Message.--

``(1) SPECIAL MESSAGE.--

``(A) IN GENERAL.--

``(i) FOUR MESSAGES.--The President may transmit to Congress not to exceed 4 special messages per calendar year, proposing to rescind dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of direct spending, and targeted tax benefits.

``(ii) TIMING.--Special messages may be transmitted under clause (i)--

``(I) with the President's budget submitted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code; and

``(II) 3 other times as determined by the President.

``(iii) LIMITATIONS.--

``(I) IN GENERAL.--Special messages shall be submitted within 1 calendar year of the date of enactment of any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, or targeted tax benefit the President proposes to rescind pursuant to this Act.

``(II) RESUBMITTAL REJECTED.--If Congress rejects a bill introduced under this part, the President may not resubmit any of the dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of direct spending, or targeted tax benefits in that bill under this part, or part B with respect to dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority.

``(III) RESUBMITAL AFTER SINE DIE.--If Congress does not complete action on a bill introduced under this part because Congress adjourns sine die, the President may resubmit some or all of the dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of direct spending, and targeted tax benefits in that bill in not more than 1 subsequent special message under this part, or part B with respect to dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority.

``(B) CONTENTS OF SPECIAL MESSAGE.--Each special message shall specify, with respect to the dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, or targeted tax benefit proposed to be rescinded--

``(i) the dollar amount of discretionary budget authority available and proposed for rescission from accounts, departments, or establishments of the government and the dollar amount of the reduction in outlays that would result from the enactment of such rescission of discretionary budget authority for the time periods set forth in clause (iii);

``(ii) the specific items of direct spending and targeted tax benefits proposed for rescission and the dollar amounts of the reductions in budget authority and outlays or increases in receipts that would result from enactment of such rescission for the time periods set forth in clause (iii);

``(iii) the budgetary effects of proposals for rescission, estimated as of the date the President submits the special message, relative to the most recent levels calculated consistent with the methodology described in section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and included with a budget submission under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for the time periods of--

``(I) the fiscal year in which the proposal is submitted; and

``(II) each of the 10 following fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year after the fiscal year in which the proposal is submitted;

``(iv) any account, department, or establishment of the Government to which such dollar amount of discretionary budget authority or item of direct spending is available for obligation, and the specific project or governmental functions involved;

``(v) the reasons why such dollar amount of discretionary budget authority or item of direct spending or targeted tax benefit should be rescinded;

``(vi) the estimated fiscal and economic impacts, of the proposed rescission;

``(vii) to the maximum extent practicable, all facts, circumstances, and considerations

GPO's PDF

relating to or bearing upon the proposed rescission and the decision to effect the proposed rescission, and the estimated effect of the proposed rescission upon the objects, purposes, and programs for which the budget authority or items of direct spending or targeted tax benefits are provided; and

``(viii) a draft bill that, if enacted, would rescind the budget authority, items of direct spending and targeted tax benefits proposed to be rescinded in that special message.

``(2) ANALYSIS BY CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE AND JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION.--

``(A) IN GENERAL.--Upon the receipt of a special message under this part proposing to rescind dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of direct spending, and targeted tax benefits--

``(i) the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall prepare an estimate of the savings in budget authority or outlays resulting from such proposed rescission and shall include in its estimate, an analysis prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation related to targeted tax benefits; and

``(ii) the Director of the Joint Committee on Taxation shall prepare an estimate and forward such estimate to the Congressional Budget Office, of the savings from repeal of targeted tax benefits.

``(B) METHODOLOGY.--The estimates required by subparagraph (A) shall be made relative to the most recent levels calculated consistent with the methodology used to calculate a baseline under section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Control Act of 1985 and included with a budget submission under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, and transmitted to the chairmen of the Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and Senate.

``(3) ENACTMENT OF RESCISSION BILL.--

``(A) DEFICIT REDUCTION.--Amounts of budget authority or items of direct spending or targeted tax benefit that are rescinded pursuant to enactment of a bill as provided under this part shall be dedicated only to deficit reduction and shall not be used as an offset for other spending increases or revenue reductions.

``(B) ADJUSTMENT OF BUDGET TARGETS.--Not later than 5 days after the date of enactment of a rescission bill as provided under this part, the chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall revise spending and revenue levels under section 311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and adjust the committee allocations under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or any other adjustments as may be appropriate to reflect the rescission. The adjustments shall reflect the budgetary effects of such rescissions as estimated by the President pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)(iii). The appropriate committees shall report revised allocations pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the revised allocations and aggregates shall be considered to have been made under a concurrent resolution on the budget agreed to under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and shall be enforced under the procedures of that Act.

``(C) ADJUSTMENTS TO CAPS.--After enactment of a rescission bill as provided under this part, the President shall revise applicable limits under the Second Look at Wasteful Spending Act of 2007, as appropriate.

``(c) Procedures for Expedited Consideration.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--

``(A) INTRODUCTION.--Before the close of the second day of session of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, after the date of receipt of a special message transmitted to Congress under subsection (b), the majority leader of each House, for himself, or minority leader of each House, for himself, or a Member of that House designated by that majority leader or minority leader shall introduce (by request) the President's draft bill to rescind the amounts of budget authority or items of direct spending or targeted tax benefits, as specified in the special message and the President's draft bill. If the bill is not introduced as provided in the preceding sentence in either House, then, on the third day of session of that House after the date of receipt of that special message, any Member of that House may introduce the bill.

``(B) REFERRAL AND REPORTING.--

``(i) ONE COMMITTEE.--The bill shall be referred by the presiding officer to the appropriate committee. The committee shall report the bill without any revision and with a favorable, an unfavorable, or without recommendation, not later than the fifth day of session of that House after the date of introduction of the bill in that House. If the committee fails to report the bill within that period, the committee shall be automatically discharged from consideration of the bill, and the bill shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.

``(ii) MULTIPLE COMMITTEES.--

``(I) REFERRALS.--If a bill contains provisions in the jurisdiction of more than 1 committee, the bill shall be jointly referred to the committees of jurisdiction and the Committee on the Budget.

``(II) VIEWS OF COMMITTEE.--Any committee, other than the Committee on the Budget, to which a bill is referred under this clause may submit a favorable, an unfavorable recommendation, without recommendation with respect to the bill to the Committee on the Budget prior to the reporting or discharge of the bill.

``(III) REPORTING.--The Committee on the Budget shall report the bill not later than the fifth day of session of that House after the date of introduction of the bill in that House, without any revision and with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or with no recommendation, together with the recommendations of any committee to which the bill has been referred.

``(IV) DISCHARGE.--If the Committee on the Budget fails to report the bill within that period, the committee shall be automatically discharged from consideration of the bill, and the bill shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.

``(C) FINAL PASSAGE.--A vote on final passage of the bill shall be taken in the Senate and the House of Representatives on or before the close of the 10th day of session of that House after the date of the introduction of the bill in that House. If the bill is passed, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall cause the bill to be transmitted to the Senate before the close of the next day of session of the House.

``(2) CONSIDERATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.--

``(A) MOTION TO PROCEED TO CONSIDERATION.--A motion in the House of Representatives to proceed to the consideration of a bill under this subsection shall be highly privileged and not debatable. An amendment to the motion shall not be in order, nor shall it be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.

``(B) LIMITS ON DEBATE.--Debate in the House of Representatives on a bill under this subsection shall not exceed 4 hours, which shall be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the bill. A motion further to limit debate shall not be debatable. It shall not be in order to move to recommit a bill under this subsection or to move to reconsider the vote by which the bill is agreed to or disagreed to.

``(C) APPEALS.--Appeals from decisions of the chair relating to the application of the Rules of the House of Representatives to the procedure relating to a bill under this part shall be decided without debate.

``(D) APPLICATION OF HOUSE RULES.--Except to the extent specifically provided in this part, consideration of a bill under this part shall be governed by the Rules of the House of Representatives. It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider any bill introduced pursuant to the provisions of this part under a suspension of the rules or under a special rule.

``(3) CONSIDERATION IN THE SENATE.--

``(A) MOTION TO PROCEED TO CONSIDERATION.--A motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill under this subsection in the Senate shall not be debatable. A motion to proceed to consideration of the bill may be made even though a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to. It shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to proceed is agreed to or disagreed to.

``(B) LIMITS ON DEBATE.--Debate in the Senate on a bill under this subsection, and all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall not exceed a total of 10 hours, equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

``(C) DEBATABLE MOTIONS AND APPEALS.--Debate in the Senate on any debatable motion or appeal in connection with a bill under this subsection shall be limited to not more than 1 hour from the time allotted for debate, to be equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

``(D) MOTION TO LIMIT DEBATE.--A motion in the Senate to further limit debate on a bill under this subsection is not debatable.

``(E) MOTION TO RECOMMIT.--A motion to recommit a bill under this subsection is not in order.

``(F) CONSIDERATION OF THE HOUSE BILL.--

``(i) IN GENERAL.--If the Senate has received the House companion bill to the bill introduced in the Senate prior to the vote required under paragraph (1)(C), then the Senate shall consider, and the vote under paragraph (1)(C) shall occur on, the House companion bill.

``(ii) PROCEDURE AFTER VOTE ON SENATE BILL.--If the Senate votes, pursuant to paragraph (1)(C), on the bill introduced in the Senate, the Senate bill shall be held pending receipt of the House message on the bill. Upon receipt of the House companion bill, the House bill shall be deemed to be considered, read for the third time, and the vote on passage of the Senate bill shall be considered to be the vote on the bill received from the House.

``(d) Amendments and Divisions Prohibited.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--No amendment to a bill considered under this part shall be in order in either the Senate or the House of Representatives.

``(2) NO DIVISION.--It shall not be in order to demand a division of the question in the House of Representatives (or in a Committee of the Whole).

``(3) NO SUSPENSION.--No motion to suspend the application of this subsection shall be in order in the House of Representatives, nor shall it be in order in either the House of Representatives or the Senate to suspend the application of this subsection by unanimous consent.

``(e) Temporary Presidential Authority To Withhold.--

``(1) AVAILABILITY.--The President may not withhold any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority until the President transmits and Congress receives a special message


The text of the Gregg resolution is not immediately available, but it has been reported on in all the major news media:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/washington/06congcnd.html?ex=1328331600&en=e979ac70197f2173&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

"That second alternative, authored by Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, was proving problematic for Democrats since it was likely to garner a substantial amount of support and potentially be the resolution capable of winning the 60 votes that Republicans say should be a threshold for passage."

[blonndee]

34. Thanks again.

That helps a lot! :hi:

[Bobbie Jo]

13. Oh yes dear Minority Party...America's watching. n/t

[anitar1]

16. Am I to understand that there are options as to wheather or not to send troops?

This smells. the Pugs want to follow their "leader", plain and simple. either one supports this or one does not. Imo there are NO options.I see Gordy Smith is right in there , trying to save his seat in '08.

[neverforget]

18. Why now and not last week when they came up? Cowards every last

one of them. They'll get a call from Cheney and they'll tow the line again.

[bigtree]

23. I think we were 11 short

check me on this

[MiniMe]

37. Actually, 10

Harry Reid voted "no" for procedural reasons.

[FredStembottom]

26. Hell.... why not?

The Dems have too much "off the table" to even function.

Why the f*ck not.....

[BuyingThyme]

30. For now on, question EVERYTHING into which John Warner

sticks his nose.

[RiverStone]

32. So are these 7 to the rethugs what Feingold....

Kucinich, Kennedy, Boxer, Obama, (maybe Webb) are to the DEMS?

Its confusing, cause even on principal - Hagel and Warner wimping out on the escalation debate vote was a disappointment. That being said, at least there are a few rethugs willing to go on record stating, at the very least, great discomfort with Shrub's march onward-no-matter-what policy.

Without going into senatorial procedural nuances (don't understand them well anyway) - I expect a much better showing in the House next week when the DEMS there take up the debate. All in all, though I was very pleased with the DEMS accomplishments during the first 100 hours, I'm finding little inspiration from DEMS in the Senate - save Feingold - on actions taken since January 4th to stop, slow, or even debate Shrub's fucking war.

[DeepModem Mom]

35. a.m. kick

[Solly Mack]

36. I can't help but wonder..why not all this debate BEFORE the invasion

but that's just me and I'm a wee bit of a cynic and tend to curl my nose at people who padlock the fire station and then demand discussion as to why the town burned down

Overlook me, I'm just having one of those I'm so fucking fed up with it all days.