When does the Senate vote?!!!

[ckmc333]

I've been looking for the last 2 hours everywhere I can think and am unable to find out when the senate votes on this bill. Does anyone out there know?

[stormy455]

Nope. Not even the Senate knows. Heck, they may not vote on it at all.

[cowboy.up]

Lay you 3:1 they don't vote at all. And if they do I'll go double or nothing it doesn't pass. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ArtMonkRules]

They haven't scheduled a vote for the bill yet.... nor are they obligated to before they go into recess. If they fail to vote on it before this happens, congress will have to start all over in January, and we should be crossing our fingers that the balance of power will have shifted by then. The election in Novemeber is probably the most important election ever for online poker players.

[antneye]

[ QUOTE ]
They haven't scheduled a vote for the bill yet.... nor are they obligated to before they go into recess. If they fail to vote on it before this happens, congress will have to start all over in January, and we should be crossing our fingers that the balance of power will have shifted by then. The election in Novemeber is probably the most important election ever for online poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it matters which party rules congress next term. This passed across party lines. What really matters is that the individuals who have pushed this legislation in the house need to lose there seats.......this should be the rally cry for poker players in the states of these jackasses.

The game plan here is to have the senate fail to act, and the congressmen who have pushed this lose their jobs.

[mattnxtc]

You know i was an independent though i like bush better than kerry or gore (not my fault dems put boring people in elections) but this issue has caused me a lot of disgust towards republicans and im glad to see at least one party is actually worried about the freedoms of the individual. Ironically it comes from the side that supposedly promotes big govt.

[ArtMonkRules]

Its true that both parties did pass this in the house, however, the case has been made that a lot of the democrats voted for this bill simply because they knew it would pass already, and they were trying to score some points with the religious right in the upcoming election. That said; the strongest opposition to this bill, and the loudest voices to point out the bills many hypocracies have certainly been democrats, and mostly Blue-State democrats who are not worrying so much about pandering to the religious zealots.

[stormy455]

[ QUOTE ]
You know i was an independent though i like bush better than kerry or gore (not my fault dems put boring people in elections) but this issue has caused me a lot of disgust towards republicans and im glad to see at least one party is actually worried about the freedoms of the individual. Ironically it comes from the side that supposedly promotes big govt.

[/ QUOTE ]
And which side is that? The last time I checked the vote, both parties voted overwhelming to pass H.R. 4411. Sure the democrats were slightly less overwhelming but it was still close to 60-40 and if any candidate won by that margin he'd be claiming a huge mandate.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know i was an independent though i like bush better than kerry or gore (not my fault dems put boring people in elections) but this issue has caused me a lot of disgust towards republicans and im glad to see at least one party is actually worried about the freedoms of the individual. Ironically it comes from the side that supposedly promotes big govt.

[/ QUOTE ]
And which side is that? The last time I checked the vote, both parties voted overwhelming to pass H.R. 4411. Sure the democrats were slightly less overwhelming but it was still close to 60-40 and if any candidate won by that margin he'd be claiming a huge mandate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big difference between a 60-40 vote for president and a 60% to 40% vote on anything else. When a supreme court decision comes down 6-3 it's hardly take as huge mandate, for instance.

Repubs went for this bill 91-9, dems did 60-40. You want to pretend that the parties are essentially equivalent on this one, knock yourself out. Repubs aren't exactly famous for reality-based thought anyway.

[stormy455]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know i was an independent though i like bush better than kerry or gore (not my fault dems put boring people in elections) but this issue has caused me a lot of disgust towards republicans and im glad to see at least one party is actually worried about the freedoms of the individual. Ironically it comes from the side that supposedly promotes big govt.

[/ QUOTE ]
And which side is that? The last time I checked the vote, both parties voted overwhelming to pass H.R. 4411. Sure the democrats were slightly less overwhelming but it was still close to 60-40 and if any candidate won by that margin he'd be claiming a huge mandate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big difference between a 60-40 vote for president and a 60% to 40% vote on anything else. When a supreme court decision comes down 6-3 it's hardly take as huge mandate, for instance.

Repubs went for this bill 91-9, dems did 60-40. You want to pretend that the parties are essentially equivalent on this one, knock yourself out. Repubs aren't exactly famous for reality-based thought anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, they are not essentially equivalent. There's no question that this was pushed by the Republicans. The Democrats have not made it an issue, but they certainly didn't put up much of a fight to stop it. While 60-40 is better than 91-9 it is still an overwhelming majority. The Dems are not - as the poster pointed out - worried about the individual. Both parties are worried about what will get them re-elected.

[Mr.K]

the near-total lack of informed commentary in this thread merits its deletion, IMO.

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
Lay you 3:1 they don't vote at all. And if they do I'll go double or nothing it doesn't pass. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take the other side of the second half of that bet.

[johnnycakes]

BACK ON TOPIC:

What is the time frame the senate will be voting on this, if they vote on it at all?

[C0pernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
They haven't scheduled a vote for the bill yet.... nor are they obligated to before they go into recess. If they fail to vote on it before this happens, congress will have to start all over in January, and we should be crossing our fingers that the balance of power will have shifted by then. The election in Novemeber is probably the most important election ever for online poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Youre delusional if you think it would be any better under the dems

[C0pernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Its true that both parties did pass this in the house, however, the case has been made that a lot of the democrats voted for this bill simply because they knew it would pass already, and they were trying to score some points with the religious right in the upcoming election. That said; the strongest opposition to this bill, and the loudest voices to point out the bills many hypocracies have certainly been democrats, and mostly Blue-State democrats who are not worrying so much about pandering to the religious zealots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its just as arguable that some dems voted no because they knew it would pass anyway and wanted to score points with more moderate dems.

[C0pernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
BACK ON TOPIC:

What is the time frame the senate will be voting on this, if they vote on it at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

already answered in the 4th post...no vote scheduled, and none is likely to be scheduled unless theres a big push due to support the arrest

[BluffTHIS!]

A key point that has been made in previous threads is that any senator can place a hold on a bill to delay or entirely roadblock consideration, and that hold is secret. So that could already have been done and we won't know.

[C0pernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
A key point that has been made in previous threads is that any senator can place a hold on a bill to delay or entirely roadblock consideration, and that hold is secret. So that could already have been done and we won't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

sounds like a secret, one man fillibuster...are you sure about that?

[IronDragon1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A key point that has been made in previous threads is that any senator can place a hold on a bill to delay or entirely roadblock consideration, and that hold is secret. So that could already have been done and we won't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

sounds like a secret, one man fillibuster...are you sure about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

From senate.gov

[ QUOTE ]

hold - An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure.

[/ QUOTE ]

[BluffTHIS!]

It was discussed recently in another thread by some posters who work in Congress. IIRC a senator's opposition to a bill being considered can be overcome without the supermajority breaking a filibuster requires, but they give each other a lot of leeway and have more of a desire to work from consensus than do members of the house. That means that once a hold is placed on a bill, there has to be a strong drive to get it considered, which means lukewarm momentum won't get the job done.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A key point that has been made in previous threads is that any senator can place a hold on a bill to delay or entirely roadblock consideration, and that hold is secret. So that could already have been done and we won't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

sounds like a secret, one man fillibuster...are you sure about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Happens all the time, though it often isn't 100% secret. All it takes is ONE Senator to object to unanimous consent agreements and a bill suddenly becomes a HUGE pain in the ass to get passed. Depending on how opposed that one Senator is, passage could take up to 60 hours of debate plus two or more affirmative roll call votes with 2/3 of Senators voting in the affirmative (See Senate Rule XXII at http://rules.senate.gov). Basically, this is more than a week's worth of debate, meaning that when a Senator makes it clear he/she is fully committed to opposing passage, the leaders usually give up unless the bill in question is of a "must-pass" nature.

Example: There's a great bill to reform passenger rail programs in the United States (s.1516) -- one that passed by a 93-6 margin not so long ago as an amendment to an unrelated vehicle. That bill's sponsors have been trying to get it called up for very brief floor consideration followed by maybe one amendment and a voice vote (e.g a vote that can be taken without forcing all 100 Senators to come down and cast their vote) for over a year, to no avail. Why? Some unpublished "holds" by very conservative Senators (cough, Sununu, cough). Since the bill is not of a "must-pass" nature, it will never pass this year despite having 93 Senators on record as being in favor of it.

Opponents of the Internet gambling bill would be wise to understand the dynamics that have bottled this rail bill up, as they offer several clues about how the gambling bill *could* be handled in the Senate.

[BluffTHIS!]

Mr. K,

I guess what you are saying is that a "hold" implies an intent to filibuster if necessary. Is that correct?

[Mr.K]

In a sense, yes. The thing is, Senators do not filibuster the way most Americans think. There are precious few long speeches tying up the Senate floor. Much more often, they just lodge their objection and the leaders carry that objection out for them.

The last actual filibuster by speech I can think of was in 2004 some time when Harry Reid went on for 17 hours or whatever talking about his home town of Searchlight, NV. Even that wasn't really much of an actual blockade of legislative action. These days, Senators filibuster by simply telling the leader of their party (either in person or in writing) that they object to all unanimous consent agreements with respect to a certain bill or issue. The leaders, in their role as representatives of the Senators in their respective caucus, then actually carry out those objections on the Senate Floor.

For instance, if Sen. Frist went to the floor tomorrow morning and asked unanimous consent to call up S.J.Res.1, the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment, Harry Reid or whoever was covering on the floor for Reid (usually Durbin, the whip) would object on behalf of one of the many Dems who oppose even debating that bill and have likely placed holds on it. When the Democratic floor leader (Reid, Durbin, or whoever was down there at the time) objected to Frist's request, the UC request would fail.

After failing to secure UC, Frist could, if he was determined to, still try to force a debate on S.J.Res.1. To do so, he'd have to file a cloture petition signed by ~20 Senators, allow two days for the petition to ripen, and then win a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed with 60 votes or more. This exact scenario played out a few weeks ago, and the cloture vote on the motion to proceed failed 49-48 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote =00163) (60 needed to succeed). Even if the R's had won that vote (say, with 61 votes), the would have only won the right to *debate* the bill. There would still be the matter of whether the Senate ever decided to vote on passage of the bill, and that decision is also subject to filibuster, meaning it could again be subject to holds, delays, cloture, and all the rest.

I hope you see how quickly things can get out of hand in the Senate when one Senator lays a hold down from the examples I've cited. If my answers haven't been clear, I apologize.


EDIT: Occasionally, a party leader will call B.S. on a Senator holding a bill up, and basically tell them to put up or shut up. This happens most often when a member of the majority party is holding up a priority of the majority party, in which case the Majority Leader might tell the Senator that he will not honor a hold in writing, and that he's going to call the bill up at a time/date certain. When the Leader goes to call the bill up at that time, the onus would be on the objecting Senator to show up on the floor in person to object, in which case he/she could then carry out the hold, albeit not secretly. This happened more than a few times when Trent Lott was Majority Leader in the late 1990s and early 00's. So in these cases, yes, a hold is exactly what you said: a stated intent to filibuster. Its just that in most cases, a Senator never needs to do more than express that intent to achieve his ends.

[dieharder]

with all the citizens trapped at Lebanon, any senator wants to deal with poker law first is gay

[SoftcoreRevolt]

[ QUOTE ]
with all the citizens trapped at Lebanon, any senator wants to deal with poker law first is gay

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell them that. If they oppose gay marriage they will very likely not want to be gay, so they won't worry about the gambling prohibition for fear of becoming gay.

Oh Party and Stars, can't you spend one hours worth of rake each to pay off Reid or anyone to place a hold on this.

[BluffTHIS!]

A news story that can be found here (http://today.reuters.com/business/newsArticle.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-07-20T160746Z_01_N202313_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-LEISURE-GAMBLING-SENATE-DC.XML) contains the following information on the bill:

A bill to ban Internet gambling is facing some opposition in the U.S. Senate and will not come up for a vote before the chamber takes its August recess, an aide to the U.S. Senate majority leader said on Thursday.

. . . an aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said that lawmakers were still working on the bill and would not be able to hold a floor vote before the Senate recesses for its August vacation.

[Beastmaster]

Sounds like some decent news, at least someone is showing some opposition and may make this difficult for the time frame involved....still going to write my Senators but hopefully it doesn't come to a vote or isn't added to a bill under the radar.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like some decent news, at least someone is showing some opposition and may make this difficult for the time frame involved....still going to write my Senators but hopefully it doesn't come to a vote or isn't added to a bill under the radar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I find dont find nthat reassuring whatsoever, if there was some talk to wnat to push it through by august, and they cant, that means someone wants to get this done quickly, so they are going to get on it ASAP. Only a month after the house voted on it, there was talk about the senate votes, stuff rarely happens that fast. I really thing that with UB not taking american customers, the PR stunt by arresting Carruthers, and the relative speed by which some senators wanted to vote on the bill, things are looking terrible.

[Mr.K]

Show me the money. That article quotes an unnamed staffer, and cites a yet-to-materialize Senate bill. Count me skeptical.

I have said on several prior occasions here in the legislation forum that it is very unlikely that the bill would pass before the August recess, but I think the prospects of passage in September are much harder to judge. Two things that could help us get a better understanding are 1.) on the record comments by key stakeholders, and 2.) seeing whether a Senate bill actually materializes.

EDIT: I can think of one or two guys that work for Frist who, if they are the ones quoted, would lend a lot of weight to the statements (Bob Stevenson is one that comes to mind). OTOH, if the person quoted is some 25 year-old memo writer, then the statement means next to nothing.

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt it matters which party rules congress next term. This passed across party lines.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is flawed logic. Just becuase both parties offered nominal support for this bill does not mean they both support it enough to bring it up for another vote. If the Democrats were to win the House it's likely it would not come up for a vote again -- they would be too busy issuing subpoenas, and passing legislation they know would be vetoed.

[jt1]

When arguing whether this is a bi-partisan effort or a Republican effort, we are forgetting one thing. The Democratic party is currently split up into Red and Blue factions. The blue faction is anti-patriot bill, sympathetic to the drug legalization debate, viciously pro-choice, ironically pro gun control as well as anti free trade, and anti-internet gaming prohibition. The red faction sides with the majority members of the Republican party believing that prohibition sets a model of moral behavior from which citizens can take guidance from and that national security and civil order trumps individual liberty. What makes them still democrat is that they too are anti free trade and so have the support of the labor unions.

And so, whether Democrat or Republican / blue or red, eventually your guy will dissapoint you if you believe that a man is free to do what he pleases as long as he is on his own property and isn't directly hurting anyone else. Probably no more than 1% of all adults would support such an amendment and so it should come as no surprise that congress is playing around with restricting internet gaming.

On this particular bill, however, you are better off supporting blue state Democrats.

[stormy455]

[ QUOTE ]
Show me the money. That article quotes an unnamed staffer, and cites a yet-to-materialize Senate bill. Count me skeptical.

I have said on several prior occasions here in the legislation forum that it is very unlikely that the bill would pass before the August recess, but I think the prospects of passage in September are much harder to judge. Two things that could help us get a better understanding are 1.) on the record comments by key stakeholders, and 2.) seeing whether a Senate bill actually materializes.

EDIT: I can think of one or two guys that work for Frist who, if they are the ones quoted, would lend a lot of weight to the statements (Bob Stevenson is one that comes to mind). OTOH, if the person quoted is some 25 year-old memo writer, then the statement means next to nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a link with names of staffers web page (http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=reutersnews&articleid=MTFH83851_2006-07-20_19-25-46_N202313&feed=Bus&action=article) . The quotes in this article don't look to promising. Frist's chief of staff says they are still trying to get this done before the August recess

[ QUOTE ]
"We are trying to get something done before the August recess," set to begin on August 4, said Eric Ueland, Frist's chief of staff.

Earlier on Thursday, another Frist aide said lawmakers were still working on the bill, but would not be able to vote on it before the Senate heads off for its month-long vacation.

Ueland rejected that characterization, saying Frist had not given up on getting a vote before the August recess.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like some decent news, at least someone is showing some opposition and may make this difficult for the time frame involved....still going to write my Senators but hopefully it doesn't come to a vote or isn't added to a bill under the radar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I find dont find nthat reassuring whatsoever, if there was some talk to wnat to push it through by august, and they cant, that means someone wants to get this done quickly, so they are going to get on it ASAP. Only a month after the house voted on it, there was talk about the senate votes, stuff rarely happens that fast. I really thing that with UB not taking american customers, the PR stunt by arresting Carruthers, and the relative speed by which some senators wanted to vote on the bill, things are looking terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]


you are way over-reacting to 'talk of wanting to push this through by august.'

The only way they COULD vote on it would be fast.
Otherwise the legislation will die.

They won't be able to do it most likely.
but yes, those who are most in favor of the bill are naturally going to hope that they can get to work on it as quick as possible.


I don't feel like researching:
How long does the August recess last?

If it's 6 weeks then they would come back in October and would only have a little bit of time before the Nov elections. And I suspect 1/3 of the Senate having their seats up for grabs along with all the other issues they will be focused on will keep them somewhat busy.


Also - does somebody have the link to the house-of-reps voting breakdown on this?

[Mr.K]

Ueland is a big hitter. His remarks trump the unattributed remarks by several powers of ten.

[stormy455]

[ QUOTE ]
Ueland is a big hitter. His remarks trump the unattributed remarks by several powers of ten.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was afraid you might say something like that.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't feel like researching:


[/ QUOTE ]

I love your posts man, and you're the last guy I'd wannt to pick on, but this quote embodies 95% of the other posts in this forum lately. Lazy and impatient. The info is there, in many cases brought right to you in this forum, but people just won't lift a [censored] finger to look for it.

The August recess runs from Aug 3 or 4 September 4. It is possible that the Senate will adjourn earlier than Aug 4, but it is not at all likely that it will reconvene prior to Sept 5 (unless major events force it to do so). The Senate will probably stay in session until the first week of October, and then will break for the elections, reconvening in late November to wrap up unfinished business.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
nly have a little bit of time before the Nov elections. And I suspect 1/3 of the Senate having their seats up for grabs along with all the other issues they will be focused on will keep them somewhat busy.

[/ QUOTE ]

While there are 33 seats up for grabs, only 3 are really competitive (Montana-Sen. Burns, Ohio-Sen. DeWine, Rhode Island-Sen. Chaffee) , with one incumbent (Sen. Santorum) looking as if he'll be soundly defeated. If we toss in Sen. Talent's seat in Missouri as being 'competitive' (and I don't think is, based on the polling & TradeSports data I've seen), there's really only a handful of competitive races.

[Uglyowl]

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/two_column_table/2006_Schedule.htm

[JPFisher55]

From everything that I have read Talent v. McCaskill is competitive. The Post-Dispatch had McCaskill ahead by about 2-3 points, but it is a Democrat shill. Rasmussen had Talent up by 2-3 points. McCaskill is the State Auditor, but is very well know. She defeated the incumbent governor, Bob Holden, in the 2004 primary, but barely lost to Matt Blunt.
I emailed Sen. Talent and told him that I would vote for McCaskill if HR4411 passed the Senate and he voted for it.
I live in St. Louis, so I hope my email mattered.

[haakee]

[ QUOTE ]
I really thing that with UB not taking american customers

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I just played a couple hands on UB to verify that I can still play.

[MicroBob]

Bill Frist is retiring.

We have no idea who the next senator from Tennessee is going to be.

Democrat Harold Ford will easily win the democrat nomination and will be up against one of 3 Republicans (although it now appears the Republican primary in a couple weeks is a 2-horse race).


What Ford's chances are against whichever Republican opponent I'm not certain and I don't think anybody else is either.

[The_Scout]

[ QUOTE ]
Ueland rejected that characterization, saying Frist had not given up on getting a vote before the August recess.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ueland is a big hitter. His remarks trump the unattributed remarks by several powers of ten.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you think the Ueland remark is a bit defeatist, though? "Not giving up" sounds like they're trying to save face with their Republican base rather than actually hoping to get something accomplished. (Assuming that's more or less the way he phrased it, anyway.)

Also, there's the uncontroverted assertion that "there is opposition" to the bill. Doesn't that indicate that it's going to be hard to move it up the schedule?

[MicroBob]

I completely agree that "haven't given up" sounds defeatest.

There probably WAS an aide who spoke out of line about the REALITY that Frist said they just won't have time for it.

Then they scrambled when that idiot opened his big mouth and scolded him, "We were just talking amongst ourselves. We didn't want the freaking world to know our plans about it."


I would like to see this info about there 'being opposition' to the bill before I get too excited about that.
But it does sound promising IF it were to get close to a vote that they might try to sneak in some other ridiculous language to make sure it doesn't pass or it might never come to vote.


If it does come to a vote in the senate then I think we'll have a problem (unless there's enough other stuff thrown in to keep it from passing).

[fasteddy1970]

Frist is trying to get a vote done during the month of August. The Senate bill is exactly the same as the one passed in Congress.

[stormy455]

[ QUOTE ]
Frist is trying to get a vote done during the month of August. The Senate bill is exactly the same as the one passed in Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]You better check your sources. the Senate will be in recess from Aug 4th (or 5th) thru Labor Day. (pretty much the whole month of August)

[redbeard]

hey fasteddy (or anyone else) does this mean the bill went through (commerce) committee debate and they choose not to change any of the wording put forth by the house?

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/two_column_table/2006_Schedule.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

The leadership has already been in Roll Call and other hill rags saying that target adjournment date is not going to be adhered to. Here's the article:

Senate Plans Earlier Recess
Frist Wants No Session in Dec.



By John Stanton and Ben Pershing
Roll Call Staff


July 10, 2006

With a number of GOP incumbents facing difficult re-election contests this year, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have scrapped plans to keep the Senate in session through the beginning of October, and will instead look to wrap up work on as many appropriations bills and other “must pass” measures before Sept. 27, GOP aides said.

In adjusting the calendar, Frist is aiming to give Members as much time in their home states as possible. The Majority Leader also is hoping to stick to his pledge to complete the work of the 109th Congress by Thanksgiving and is planning a brief week-and-a-half work session following the elections to wrap up work on outstanding appropriations bills.

Of course, as Hurricane Katrina demonstrated last year, much of the schedule, and the two parties’ political plans, are largely at the mercy of circumstance. With the peak hurricane season approaching, another series of devastating storms, like last year’s, would almost certainly force Frist to scrap his plans.

Likewise, if the situation in Iraq deteriorates, or if a new round of scandals hits, changes to both the agenda and political calculus would be required.

In addition, the difficulties of running the Senate — something former Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has compared to “herding cats” — also will present significant challenges to Frist.

Although Senate GOP and Democratic aides said adjourning by the end of September is an admirable goal, most sources are quick to point out that Frist and other leaders have traditionally made similar vows, only to end up having to break them.

For instance, one GOP aide noted, that while “they’re going to do everything they can to get us out by Oct. 1 ... I’ve heard that before, so I’m not buying any nonrefundable tickets for Oct. 2.”

House Republican leadership aides were similarly skeptical of Frist’s plan for a relatively early adjournment.

“We welcome the Senate’s efforts to get their work done as soon as possible,” said a House GOP leadership aide. “We appreciate their assistance. We hope when we get our work done, they’ll be able to get theirs done.”

House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) surprised some of his colleagues in May when he predicted that the House would leave town on the chamber’s scheduled adjournment date of Oct. 6, then return to the Capitol for a very lengthy post-election session.

“We’re going to be here until Christmas,” Boehner said.

The statement took some Members aback, not because they doubted Congress would be here in December, but because leaders traditionally say publicly that they will finish their work on time to keep pressure on the House to continue moving legislation.

While Boehner has been blunt about the House’s prospects for avoiding a lame-duck session, the chamber is actually better positioned than the Senate is to finish in October.

The House already has passed 10 of its 11 appropriations bills, though Republican leaders have hit a snag in their efforts to pass the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education spending bill. The measure became tied up when Democrats and some moderate Republicans vowed to attach a politically popular minimum-wage hike.

That, and a handful of other disputes, prevented the Labor-HHS measure from hitting the House floor, and aides said privately that it may not pass before the November elections.

Beyond appropriations, the House could conceivably deal with the remaining legislative priorities faster than the Senate could, since bills rarely take more than a day or two to pass the House once they hit the floor, whereas contentious measures in the Senate easily can eat up a week or more.

Unlike the past several stretches of work in the Senate, Frist is hoping to focus less on divisive political issues such as gay marriage and more on bread-and-butter legislation with a heavy emphasis on national security and defense spending, as well as economic issues, a senior leadership aide said.

Frist wants to “give Members something to take home” during the upcoming August recess and the October lead-up to Election Day. However, with both Frist and Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) looking to complete new legislation governing terrorist-suspect tribunals as soon as possible, partisans in both camps will still get a chance to lob political bombs from the floor this month.

The Senate also will finally take up controversial stem-cell research legislation, which has been a lightning rod for partisan attacks. The issue also has prompted deep splits within the GOP between social conservatives and many others in the Republican Party.

Nevertheless, much of this month’s floor schedule will be built around the appropriations process, with the Homeland Security spending bill leading off this week. Frist also would like to wrap up the Defense and the military construction-Veterans Affairs spending bills as soon as possible, although it is unclear how many of those measures — not to mention any other spending bills in the pipeline — can be finished before the August break.

Although shaving off the extra week in October from the Senate schedule likely would increase pressure on appropriators, Senate leaders are not looking to force Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) to move an early omnibus package in September or to deviate significantly from the traditional legislative process.

While a continuing resolution will be necessary to avoid a government shutdown, Frist hopes to have the bulk of the spending measures far enough along so the Senate can devote most of the week and a half in November it is to be in session to pushing through conference reports.

At the same time, Frist is hoping to tackle a number of kitchen-table economic issues during July and September, the leadership aide said. For instance, as soon as this week, a special energy task force Frist put together earlier this year to produce a new energy bill that targets consumer prices could wrap up work on its legislative proposal.

Frist and Hastert also have reportedly discussed finishing up a bill on sexual predators by July 27, the anniversary of the disappearance of “America’s Most Wanted” host John Walsh’s child. Frist also plans to revive his small-business health plans as part of this economic push and will attempt to cast the fight over an extension of the estate tax repeal in an economic light by arguing that it is a jobs-creation measure.

Despite pressure from outside groups, however, it is appearing less likely that either the estate tax measure or immigration reform legislation will be completed before October. Frist is not scheduling any further floor time for either measure at this point, preferring to take a wait-and-see approach to allow behind- the-scenes talks to develop in the hope that a deal can be brokered

Frist also hopes to continue to push through as many of President Bush’s judicial nominees as possible. While it appears unlikely that particularly controversial nominees will see floor consideration this year, the GOP expects to fill a number of vacancies before October.

Judges also will play a part in a political offensive Frist is planning on behalf of GOP incumbents, aides said. And unlike the 2004 election, when they bemoaned Democratic obstruction, the GOP this fall will likely emphasize its prowess in getting nominees confirmed.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

Well at least that is some good news.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
hey fasteddy (or anyone else) does this mean the bill went through (commerce) committee debate and they choose not to change any of the wording put forth by the house?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. The House-passed bill was read twice and placed on the Senate "Legislative Calendar," a list of bills that are eligible for floor action. I was surprised to see that it was not forward to one of the committees for markup/hearings. As far as what this means in the grander scheme of things, I am not sure what to read into it.

The fact that it is sitting on the Calendar does mean that it is possible that the Senate would take up a new, s-numbered bill (e.g. S.2444) written by Sen. Kyl, clear that bill out of committee, call up the House bill, strike all after the enacting clause, and insert the contents of the Senate bill. After doing that, the Senate would then pass the House bill as amended, and send it back to the House. In many cases, this is done if the House and Senate leaders pre-clear a compromise bill. When the House receives the compromise, it passes it by UC/voice vote/suspension, thus avoiding the need for a conference committee (a process which can be time consuming and exposes bills to some additional procedural hurdles).

Another possibility is that the Senate just calls up the House-passed bill some time, and either passes it with or without a vote, with or without an amendment, on very little notice. I'm talking potentially as little as 40 minutes notice in some cases.

Also, the Senate Judiciary Committee would likely have jurisdiction in this case, although I can certainly see a case to be made for the Commerce Committee having jurisdiction as well.

[WSOPChump]

ive never voted in my life but im definitely voting libertarian because of this bill.
All the republicans have is the religious crowd.
Its amazing this crap bill started because House members were taking donations from gambling interest.

[Mr.K]

Yeah, Ueland's quote does sound defeatist to be honest. The article Nate tha Great linked to is also good news for those opposing the bill. The fact that Kyl made an effort to pass the bill by unanimous consent (e.g. without a vote), and someone objected means that there very well could be holds on the bill. If not, then the objection was just a one-time objection. Thing is, if it was only a one-time deal, they'd try the UC again a few days later, which does not seem to be happening.

I'll scan the Congressional Record online to see if there was a UC request on the floor to pass the bill, or if this was just a behind the scenes objection (meaning 90% of the time there is a hold -- which would be tremendous news for bill opponents).

EDIT: After searching, I don't see any UC requests or objections in the Cong. Record. What must have happened was that the leadership sent out a notice to all Senate offices indicating its intent to call up the bill, and at least one office called in and objected ahead of time. Usually when this happens, the leaders stop there and do not go to the floor with the bill.

Another interesting tidbit: the bill was held at the desk under Rule XIV, which is generally done for bills that are meant never to go through Committee. This is usually a fast-track procedure, and it appears Frist did in fact try to move the bill very rapidly through the Senate (and failed).

I dinged PPA pretty hard in an earlier post for sucking at lobbying, but maybe they have done what they need to do to win behind the scenes. Very interesting stuff.

[Beastmaster]

Now can I say we finally have some decent news?.....from what you point out Mr.K this sounds very interesting.You seem to know your stuff, and from what I've read in the forums you follow it pretty closely....

[Lottery Larry]

Should all of these details, about the workings of the Senate and House, scare me about the efficiency of gubbement?

Or should I be pleased that it takes so long for them to do real damage?

[Mr.K]

the latter, considering how many truly bad ideas are floating around in Congress at any given time.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Frist is retiring.

We have no idea who the next senator from Tennessee is going to be.

Democrat Harold Ford will easily win the democrat nomination and will be up against one of 3 Republicans (although it now appears the Republican primary in a couple weeks is a 2-horse race).


What Ford's chances are against whichever Republican opponent I'm not certain and I don't think anybody else is either.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, TradeSports has it at 3 to 1 the Republicans retain that open seat in TN; however, as of July 1st, the Cook Political Report ranks that race as a "toss up" race, along with the aforementioned races in Montana, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Missouri -- it also includes the race in Pennsylvania (where polls show incumbent Sen. Santorum down by as much as 16 points) as a likely "toss up".

I made it a point to mention this, because voters in these states who are reading this should make it a point to get both candidates in these various races on record on HR 4411 and similar legislation and then vote accordingly. Even if HR 4411 dies, there's no reason why we won't see a similar attempt in the future.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bill Frist is retiring.

We have no idea who the next senator from Tennessee is going to be.

Democrat Harold Ford will easily win the democrat nomination and will be up against one of 3 Republicans (although it now appears the Republican primary in a couple weeks is a 2-horse race).


What Ford's chances are against whichever Republican opponent I'm not certain and I don't think anybody else is either.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, TradeSports has it at 3 to 1 the Republicans retain that open seat in TN; however, as of July 1st, the Cook Political Report ranks that race as a "toss up" race, along with the aforementioned races in Montana, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Missouri -- it also includes the race in Pennsylvania (where polls show incumbent Sen. Santorum down by as much as 16 points) as a likely "toss up".

I made it a point to mention this, because voters in these states who are reading this should make it a point to get both candidates in these various races on record on HR 4411 and similar legislation and then vote accordingly. Even if HR 4411 dies, there's no reason why we won't see a similar attempt in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Latest Zogby poll (June 22- I would think a new one comes out soon) has Bryant (R) ahead of Ford (D) by 4 points.

[Mr.K]

Zogby's methedology sucks. Phone polls > Internet polls. Also, most other election watchers have TN SEN as "leans Republican," though Jennifer Duffy and her team at the Cook Report are among the best at what they do.

[PropPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really thing that with UB not taking american customers

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I just played a couple hands on UB to verify that I can still play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just did the same before reading your post.