Immigration Update: A Clarification
Yesterday, I put up this post regarding a piece of e-mail K-Lo @ The Corner had received. From the looks of it, on the outset, it appeared to be more backroom antics. Allah agreed, as he explained it simply that the supporters of ther immigration bill were going to fill up the amendment slots agreed to to prevent any further ones from coming forward.
Today, K-Lo received another e-mail, only this time it comes from a leadership source rather than a Senate staffer:
your correspondent makes a point about an amendment procedure (often called a "clay pigeon" amendment) under Rule XV (3) of the Senate Rules that needs a bit of clarification. It is rarely used, but it has been used in the Senate as recently as last year. Sen. Coburn used the procedure last April in an attempt to strip pork from an appropriations bill.
Also, Reid won't need the help or support of any other Senator (leadership, grand bargainers or otherwise) to get this bill on the Senate calendar under Rule XIV. He can get the bill on the calendar under the rule with no help at all. To get it on the floor (under the motion to proceed) will require either unanimous consent (which it won't get) or a cloture motion. That takes 60 votes.
The Republican leadership gave Reid no assurances about cloture on the bill; the final makeup of the bill after amendments will determine whether or not cloture is invoked on the bill itself. And, unlike before the last cloture vote, the leadership was successful in getting another dozen or so Republican amendments pending to the bill. There will now be more GOP roll call votes on amendments than on last year's bill when the GOP was in charge (not counting the committee amendments).
That sounds much better. The previous e-mail she received sounded far oo underhanded, which is why it evoked the response from that it did. I was very angry over the move; obviously too angry to follow up. This today, however, shows a glimmer of hope.
If he still needs cloture to get the bill out there using that rule, he is in trouble. Either that, or he will obtain the sixty votes needed for that, but when it comes time for real cloture -- an end to all debate on the bill -- he will not get it.
Of course should this pass the Senate, it is likely to have a rough go in the House. On Friday, a bill passed the House with overwhelming support to deny Homeland Secuirty funds to so-called "sanctuary cities." It passed by a vote of 234-189 with 49 Democrats crossing the aisle (as opposed to the nine Republicans that crossed to vote against it). Now Tancredo said shortly after the vote that if Nancy Pelosi wants help in getting the president's ill-conceived immigration reform through the House that she needs seventy Republicans on her side.
But if she has a number of her own depart to vote against the bill, should it even arrive in the House, she will need far more than seventy Republicans. She will need her caucus, and it is clear from the Tancredo bill that she may not have them. Worse yet, she may not have the seventy Republicans. And still worse, there is the matter of the spending and revenue portions of the immigration bill that the house has yet to weigh in on. If it emerges from the Senate as is, then the House can blue slip it; demanding the Senate remove the back tax requirements, and the revenues assured for the security and enforcement bribes from the president.
Marcie
UPDATE: It appears that a "war of words"has erupted between the staffer from yesterday, and the leadership person today. Below are the points made from the leadership, and the response from the Senate staffer:
"your correspondent makes a point about an amendment procedure (often called a "clay pigeon" amendment) under Rule XV (3) of the Senate Rules that needs a bit of clarification. It is rarely used, but it has been used in the Senate as recently as last year. Sen. Coburn used the procedure last April in an attempt to strip pork from an appropriations bill."
RESPONSE: The reason it is unprecedented in this case is that it has never been used by the Senate power structure, to our knowledge, to RESTRICT the rights of Senators wishing to get their amendments heard. Rather it has been the case (as with Senator Coburn last year) that the rare times it has been used (perhaps, 2 or 3 times in history?) were specifically to ensure that Senators were not blocked from getting those amendments called up. Indeed, some Senators concerned about PROTECTING their rights may well have been in their rights to try to attempt this procedure two weeks ago, but may well have decided that it would have been "too nuclear" of an option at that time. Now, Reid - and anyone working with him to effectuate the plan - is using it to restrict the rights of Senators to offer amendments they believe could improve the bill and to debate the amendments in question...
"Also, Reid won't need the help or support of any other Senator (leadership, grand bargainers or otherwise) to get this bill on the Senate calendar under Rule XIV. He can get the bill on the calendar under the rule with no help at all. To get it on the floor (under the motion to proceed) will require either unanimous consent (which it won't get) or a cloture motion. That takes 60 votes."
RESPONSE: This is technically correct, but misses the point.
Recall that the point we made was "We expect Reid, in conjunction with support from McConnell, Lott and Grand Bargainers Kyl, Martinez, Graham and McCain, to introduce a brand new piece of legislation - and use Rule 14 to put the bill immediately on the Senate calendar without going thru committee..." So, yes, it is only Reid who will introduce said legislation (as the Majority Leader). But, the reality is that this process is being conducted in full coordination with the Grand Bargainers and, presumably, with the support of the group above. In other words, Reid isn't moving forward (and getting the bill on the Senate calendar under Rule XIV kicks that off) without support from the group above as part of an effort "to get to 60" and get the immigration bill across the line.
"The Republican leadership gave Reid no assurances about cloture on the bill; the final makeup of the bill after amendments will determine whether or not cloture is invoked on the bill itself. And, unlike before the last cloture vote, the leadership was successful in getting another dozen or so Republican amendments pending to the bill. There will now be more GOP roll call votes on amendments than on last year's bill when the GOP was in charge (not counting the committee amendments)."
RESPONSE: As to the first point - it is good to hear that no assurances have been made. But, the plan is still in process - a plan designed with a fair amount of coordination among certain Senate leadership staff, the White House and Democrats - with the goal of attaining 60 votes and getting the bill passed and sent to the House. It is not a secret that certain members, well within their rights, believe this bill is "better than the status quo." That is their view. It is not the view, we believe, of the majority of the Republican caucus and certainly not the view of a majority of Americans, much less a majority of Republicans throughout the nation.
As to the second point about "successful in getting another dozen... Republican amendments pending" and "there will now be more GOP roll call votes on amendments than on last year's bill." The response, respectfully, is so what? Even discounting the lack of committee process (which the source notes above), the fact remains that the amendments are being cherry-picked to buy-off votes and figure out how to get the bill passed.
The problem here is a continuation of the same broken, closed-off process we have been struggling with from the beginning. The Grand Bargainers, and those supporting their efforts, recognize that further open, public scrutiny and debate of this bill harm the chances of passage.
Final point. Is it not a shame that this is where we are? It didn't have to be this way. Senator Reid pulled down the immigration bill because he didn't want to give Republicans (and some of his own Democrats) the ability to fully debate amendments and to continue to expose the significant flaws in this legislation. Republicans could have proceeded forward, together, to produce legislation that reflects the views of the vast majority of Americans and could have used that to show how far out of step with America Democrats truly are. Unfortunately, a small band of Republicans are hell-bent on coordinating legislation with Ted Kennedy that has no chance of working because they fall prey to the worst phrase in Washington: "we have to do something."
The fatal flaw that seems so pervasive in Washington, DC is that those there believe that the government is the end-all, be-all to problems in the country. this was not originally so. The Founding Fathers wanted a centralized government, but not one so invasive as to be the solution. they feared a strong central government would trample our rights as King George had.
It is becoming more apparent that those in DC now seem to have forgotten this point. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers did their best to come up with solutions that were far more beneficial to the nation. Indeed, many fought to end slavery in the fledgling republic, and it took President Lincoln to do just that. Thomas Jefferson attempted to do it when he was in office, and unfortunately failed.
This legislation is neither beneficial to the nation, nor is it a solution to a rampant problem that was caused by our own disregard for our own laws. Yes, those that came here illegally were int he wrong. they did break our laws. However, had we been enforcing them in the first place, we may not be where we are today.
Marcie
Today, K-Lo received another e-mail, only this time it comes from a leadership source rather than a Senate staffer:
your correspondent makes a point about an amendment procedure (often called a "clay pigeon" amendment) under Rule XV (3) of the Senate Rules that needs a bit of clarification. It is rarely used, but it has been used in the Senate as recently as last year. Sen. Coburn used the procedure last April in an attempt to strip pork from an appropriations bill.
Also, Reid won't need the help or support of any other Senator (leadership, grand bargainers or otherwise) to get this bill on the Senate calendar under Rule XIV. He can get the bill on the calendar under the rule with no help at all. To get it on the floor (under the motion to proceed) will require either unanimous consent (which it won't get) or a cloture motion. That takes 60 votes.
The Republican leadership gave Reid no assurances about cloture on the bill; the final makeup of the bill after amendments will determine whether or not cloture is invoked on the bill itself. And, unlike before the last cloture vote, the leadership was successful in getting another dozen or so Republican amendments pending to the bill. There will now be more GOP roll call votes on amendments than on last year's bill when the GOP was in charge (not counting the committee amendments).
That sounds much better. The previous e-mail she received sounded far oo underhanded, which is why it evoked the response from that it did. I was very angry over the move; obviously too angry to follow up. This today, however, shows a glimmer of hope.
If he still needs cloture to get the bill out there using that rule, he is in trouble. Either that, or he will obtain the sixty votes needed for that, but when it comes time for real cloture -- an end to all debate on the bill -- he will not get it.
Of course should this pass the Senate, it is likely to have a rough go in the House. On Friday, a bill passed the House with overwhelming support to deny Homeland Secuirty funds to so-called "sanctuary cities." It passed by a vote of 234-189 with 49 Democrats crossing the aisle (as opposed to the nine Republicans that crossed to vote against it). Now Tancredo said shortly after the vote that if Nancy Pelosi wants help in getting the president's ill-conceived immigration reform through the House that she needs seventy Republicans on her side.
But if she has a number of her own depart to vote against the bill, should it even arrive in the House, she will need far more than seventy Republicans. She will need her caucus, and it is clear from the Tancredo bill that she may not have them. Worse yet, she may not have the seventy Republicans. And still worse, there is the matter of the spending and revenue portions of the immigration bill that the house has yet to weigh in on. If it emerges from the Senate as is, then the House can blue slip it; demanding the Senate remove the back tax requirements, and the revenues assured for the security and enforcement bribes from the president.
Marcie
UPDATE: It appears that a "war of words"has erupted between the staffer from yesterday, and the leadership person today. Below are the points made from the leadership, and the response from the Senate staffer:
"your correspondent makes a point about an amendment procedure (often called a "clay pigeon" amendment) under Rule XV (3) of the Senate Rules that needs a bit of clarification. It is rarely used, but it has been used in the Senate as recently as last year. Sen. Coburn used the procedure last April in an attempt to strip pork from an appropriations bill."
RESPONSE: The reason it is unprecedented in this case is that it has never been used by the Senate power structure, to our knowledge, to RESTRICT the rights of Senators wishing to get their amendments heard. Rather it has been the case (as with Senator Coburn last year) that the rare times it has been used (perhaps, 2 or 3 times in history?) were specifically to ensure that Senators were not blocked from getting those amendments called up. Indeed, some Senators concerned about PROTECTING their rights may well have been in their rights to try to attempt this procedure two weeks ago, but may well have decided that it would have been "too nuclear" of an option at that time. Now, Reid - and anyone working with him to effectuate the plan - is using it to restrict the rights of Senators to offer amendments they believe could improve the bill and to debate the amendments in question...
"Also, Reid won't need the help or support of any other Senator (leadership, grand bargainers or otherwise) to get this bill on the Senate calendar under Rule XIV. He can get the bill on the calendar under the rule with no help at all. To get it on the floor (under the motion to proceed) will require either unanimous consent (which it won't get) or a cloture motion. That takes 60 votes."
RESPONSE: This is technically correct, but misses the point.
Recall that the point we made was "We expect Reid, in conjunction with support from McConnell, Lott and Grand Bargainers Kyl, Martinez, Graham and McCain, to introduce a brand new piece of legislation - and use Rule 14 to put the bill immediately on the Senate calendar without going thru committee..." So, yes, it is only Reid who will introduce said legislation (as the Majority Leader). But, the reality is that this process is being conducted in full coordination with the Grand Bargainers and, presumably, with the support of the group above. In other words, Reid isn't moving forward (and getting the bill on the Senate calendar under Rule XIV kicks that off) without support from the group above as part of an effort "to get to 60" and get the immigration bill across the line.
"The Republican leadership gave Reid no assurances about cloture on the bill; the final makeup of the bill after amendments will determine whether or not cloture is invoked on the bill itself. And, unlike before the last cloture vote, the leadership was successful in getting another dozen or so Republican amendments pending to the bill. There will now be more GOP roll call votes on amendments than on last year's bill when the GOP was in charge (not counting the committee amendments)."
RESPONSE: As to the first point - it is good to hear that no assurances have been made. But, the plan is still in process - a plan designed with a fair amount of coordination among certain Senate leadership staff, the White House and Democrats - with the goal of attaining 60 votes and getting the bill passed and sent to the House. It is not a secret that certain members, well within their rights, believe this bill is "better than the status quo." That is their view. It is not the view, we believe, of the majority of the Republican caucus and certainly not the view of a majority of Americans, much less a majority of Republicans throughout the nation.
As to the second point about "successful in getting another dozen... Republican amendments pending" and "there will now be more GOP roll call votes on amendments than on last year's bill." The response, respectfully, is so what? Even discounting the lack of committee process (which the source notes above), the fact remains that the amendments are being cherry-picked to buy-off votes and figure out how to get the bill passed.
The problem here is a continuation of the same broken, closed-off process we have been struggling with from the beginning. The Grand Bargainers, and those supporting their efforts, recognize that further open, public scrutiny and debate of this bill harm the chances of passage.
Final point. Is it not a shame that this is where we are? It didn't have to be this way. Senator Reid pulled down the immigration bill because he didn't want to give Republicans (and some of his own Democrats) the ability to fully debate amendments and to continue to expose the significant flaws in this legislation. Republicans could have proceeded forward, together, to produce legislation that reflects the views of the vast majority of Americans and could have used that to show how far out of step with America Democrats truly are. Unfortunately, a small band of Republicans are hell-bent on coordinating legislation with Ted Kennedy that has no chance of working because they fall prey to the worst phrase in Washington: "we have to do something."
The fatal flaw that seems so pervasive in Washington, DC is that those there believe that the government is the end-all, be-all to problems in the country. this was not originally so. The Founding Fathers wanted a centralized government, but not one so invasive as to be the solution. they feared a strong central government would trample our rights as King George had.
It is becoming more apparent that those in DC now seem to have forgotten this point. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers did their best to come up with solutions that were far more beneficial to the nation. Indeed, many fought to end slavery in the fledgling republic, and it took President Lincoln to do just that. Thomas Jefferson attempted to do it when he was in office, and unfortunately failed.
This legislation is neither beneficial to the nation, nor is it a solution to a rampant problem that was caused by our own disregard for our own laws. Yes, those that came here illegally were int he wrong. they did break our laws. However, had we been enforcing them in the first place, we may not be where we are today.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home