Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092400861.html

Summary: Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, says he will not bring the DoD bill to the House floor this week unless both a court security bill and an immigration measure are attached. The immigration measure is quite controversial. There are fights between Democrats and Republicans, between committee members and leadership, and between the two chambers. There is a fairly good chance that these fights will prevent the DoD Authorization bill from passing before the recess.

There is no mention of internet gambling, although I would not read anything into that. I'll leave it to our resident policy wonks to explain whether this is good or bad for us -- my guess is a bit of each.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

Interesting article Nate. This excerpt caught my eye:

"The last-minute confrontation is pitting the House's most powerful member against Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), who has said he will not add extraneous measures to the annual defense authorization bill unless they can garner unanimous support from Democrats and Republicans alike."

The unanimous support provision inspires some optimism. On the other hand if Hastert succeeds in attaching the security and immigration measures it may facilitate the addition of other non-germane items as well.

Looking forward to some expert thoughts. Should be an interesting week to say the least.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

hooray! another week to agonize about this.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

Okay, since nobody else has chimed in on this, let me try my attempt at analysis. Keep in mind that I am an amateur at best at this stuff.

There is very little chance that a "clean" version of the DoD bill (e.g. with no non-germane langauge attached) goes out before the congress goes to recess at the end of the week. Even if Warner/Levin decide they want to call Hastert's bluff, it will probably require until after the elections to do so.

I don't know how likely it is that a "dirty" version of the DoD authorization gets out before the elections. These measures that Hastert are insisting upon are genuinely controversial, far more so than the internet gambling language is, and they are far more visible, especially the immigration langauge w/r/t how hot the issue is in midterm election border states. But my guess is that there is less than a 25% chance that this all gets resolved this week, especially since Hastert just threw this curveball today (Sunday).

Whether this will increase or decrease Frist's resolve to attach the internet gambling language is not clear. Certainly, Frist has been upstaged, and this takes the internet gambling issue out of the spotlight. He could decide that this is the perfect opportunity for him to slip the gambling language in under the radar, or he could decide that too many cooks spoil the broth and look for another bill (or none at all) to attach the gambling language to. Finally, internet gambling language could become involved in horse-trading, which could work either for us or against us.

If this does get delayed until the lame duck session, that is probably a good result for us, but only because the momentum was running against us in the waning days of last week. A delay gives us the chance to reset, as well as the chance for political (e.g. the midterms) or geopolitical events to intervene. Put differently, if the visiting team has just gotten a couple of big hits and is threatening to score, and your relief pitcher isn't ready to go just yet, you really wouldn't mind a rain delay.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

Thanks Nate for the headsup. Your thoughts, observations and links to relevant sources are very much appreciated.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

I've read the DoD bill has to go through this week. So, quick question. What happens if the DoD bill doesn't go through this week? Does it actually have to go through or could it possibly wait until after the elections?

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've read the DoD bill has to go through this week. So, quick question. What happens if the DoD bill doesn't go through this week? Does it actually have to go through or could it possibly wait until after the elections?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't have to go through this week. A lot of "must pass" bills won't go through until after the elections, and it now looks like this might be one of them.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

I'm certainly no expert either, as my political knowledge is more theory based, and not in the hypocritical minutiae of congress. But my general guess is the same as Nates. This could be good, or bad. My initial worry is that the gambling language could sneak in as a compromise with the other measures, but Hastert and Frist are on the same side of the aisle. So--and I'm guessing here--if the GOP and Democrats are the ones at odds over this issue, perhaps this is more good news than bad.

However, as Mr. K has pointed out, the longer this lasts the more likely the provision gets snuck in.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
"The last-minute confrontation is pitting the House's most powerful member against Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), who has said he will not add extraneous measures to the annual defense authorization bill unless they can garner unanimous support from Democrats and Republicans alike."

[/ QUOTE ]

possible stupid question... if they can garner unanimous supoprt from Democrats and Repulicans alike why would they even need to attach it to the DoD bill? Couldn't they just spend 3 seconds of floor time to pass whatever stuff on its own?

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm certainly no expert either, as my political knowledge is more theory based, and not in the hypocritical minutiae of congress. But my general guess is the same as Nates. This could be good, or bad. My initial worry is that the gambling language could sneak in as a compromise with the other measures, but Hastert and Frist are on the same side of the aisle. So--and I'm guessing here--if the GOP and Democrats are the ones at odds over this issue, perhaps this is more good news than bad.

However, as Mr. K has pointed out, the longer this lasts the more likely the provision gets snuck in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll tell you what -- I think the near-term goal is to make sure (e.g. hope and pray) that internet gambling langauge doesn't get into any bill that passes before the midterms. IMO, this latest development reduces the chance of that happening, perhaps by a lot.

In other words, if on Friday it looked like...

35% chance that DoD Authorization is passed before midterms with internet gambling provision

55% chance that DoD Authorization is passed before midterms without internet gambling provision

10% chance that DoD Autorization does not pass before midterms

...it now looks like:

10% chance that DoD Authorization is passed before midterms with internet gambling provision

15% chance that DoD Authorization is passed before midterms without internet gambling provision

75% chance that DoD Autorization does not pass before midterms

The fight over internet gambling can and probably will resume in the lame duck session, but this was true anyway, since First could have lobbied to include the langauge in the omnibus spending bill or something else. I'll take my chances with that, if it means giving our lobbyists another eight weeks to work with, deflating the momentum on the issue, and allowing political and international contingencies to run their course.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

Another question: Is there a deadline for when the conference report must be filed for there to be enough time to bring it to the floor for a vote?

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

Good find on the article, Nate, and I agree with much of your analysis in this thread. This is a real curveball, and it breaks across all kinds of crazy lines. We have Dem versus Republican on this (at least the immigration piece -- which you all need to know is not the big immigration reform bill, but a smaller, more limited package focusing on deportation of criminal aliens). We have House versus Senate, featuring the most powerful man on Capitol Hill (Hastert) against a guy known to buck his party when he wants to (Warner). We have a deadline of passage by Friday, and we have elections coming up, which puts pressure on passage of troops bills. All in all, we've got ourselves a real Potomac drama here, with Internet gambling stuck right in the damned middle.

The gambling bill's fate rests as much on events totally unrelated to it as it does on the holds and battles immediately related to it. I want to comment much more extensively on how this will begin to play out, but I will refrain from doing so until I get a chance to talk with some people tomorrow and read the Hill rags, which I guarantee will have a good beat on this story. CongressDaily, CQ Today, and Roll Call will all probably have value-added coverage tomorrow AM.

Here's the thing that all of you need to know about this week: All the usual rules go out the window on procedure. All of them. This is the last week before one of the most tumultous elections in the last 20 years. At no point in the past decade and a half have the House and Senate been so at odds with one another, at least as far as I know. The environment is not just about Democrats versus Republicans, it is Republicans versus Republicans as well on several major items, and we are going to see some crazy fireworks before week's end.

My prediction: leaders will assemble a monster bill that will roll taxes, military, energy, immigration all together in to a single package, and they will dare the rank and file to oppose it this close to an election. There will be plenty to complain about in this package... Chairmen will get their feelings hurt (again, in Grassley's case), moderates and partisans will explode with anger at certain provisions, interest groups will rally for it and against it, and in the end we'll have big, highly publicized votes on it in each chamber. It might pass the House, but it'll fail in the Senate, and the R's will go on calling the Democrats obstructionists. Or at least this is one way things could play out...

How the Internet gambling bill shakes out in that mix is anyone's guess at this point. More to come on that later.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

I have learned far more about our system in the passed few weeks then I ever did back in school. One thing simply amazes me, that anything actually gets accomplished. Seems like you would have more luck pushing a bowling ball up a hill with a rope then trying to get a bill passed the way it was intended. Thanks for the continued updates Nate, Mr. K, and Berge.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

well a glimer of hope is shining through some very dark clouds. i'm still extremly concerned that we do not have a "champion" fighting directly for our cause within the house or senate. sure we have dodged some major bullets so far, but only by luck as it would appear. hastert could care less if the gambling bill is included as a rider anywhere we just happen to be the beneficiaries of his other concerns. we also appear to have lost our friends from the horse racing states who have supposedly received the excemptions they desired. frist and company will still have a plenty of opportunity to attach the gambling bill to another bill after the elections -- the omnibus bill apparently being the leading candidate. but it also is true that we are better off with a delay as opposed to getting our nuts kicked in tomorrow.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have learned far more about our system in the passed few weeks then I ever did back in school. One thing simply amazes me, that anything actually gets accomplished. Seems like you would have more luck pushing a bowling ball up a hill with a rope then trying to get a bill passed the way it was intended. Thanks for the continued updates Nate, Mr. K, and Berge.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is why no bill has ever been bassed the way it was intended.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

I stupidly didn't even realize until this weekend that "horse racing" meant OTB. I have a friend who makes good money working for OTB...that would have sucked. He said people at work kept it on the low so as not to get political, but they were nervous.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

Monday morning update:

CongressDailyAM is reporting no further progress on the prayer issue and a few other outstanding issues on the DoD Authorization bill this morning. At present, it looks like House and Senate leaders will be pushing for passage of four military-related bills this week, though it is unclear if any of them will be packaged together. Those bills are: DoD Appropriations (the cash), DoD Authorization (the plan), Military Tribunals (rules to try the people we're holding at Gitmo), and NSA Wiretapping. Of the four, the only one that will definitely pass this week is the appropriations bill.

Here's a blurb from the article:

"House Armed Services Chairman Warner and Senate Armed Services Chairman Hunter were locked in a stalemate last week over a provision in the House-passed defense authorization bill that would loosen restrictions on military chaplains. Warner has said he wants to hold hearings on the issue when Congress reconvenes in January before enacting any legislation covering the topic.

The chaplains issue was widely considered the largest unresolved matter facing conferees, but lawmakers have said compromises are still needed on several other outstanding issues."

I'm waiting to talk to some people about where the Internet gambling language stands, and will report as soon as I learn more.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

Excerpt from CNN.com on timeframe for lame duck sessions..........

OVERTIME! HOUSE, SENATE CONSIDER LAME-DUCK SESSIONS: Even as the House prepares to stay in session until the December snow flies, GOP leaders in the Senate remain intent on a brief, weeklong lame-duck session that would end just before Thanksgiving. Senate Republicans acknowledge, however, that a poor political outcome for their party in the midterm elections could send their planning into free fall. The Senate is set to adjourn this Friday or Saturday and plans to return to work on or around Nov. 13 for the overtime session intended to complete any outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations work. That lame duck is expected to span just seven or eight days - likely through Nov. 21 or 22 - to allow Senators time to return to their states for the holiday... While the Senate is hoping to call it quits by Thanksgiving, House Republican leaders - facing a potential loss of their majority - already have left open the likelihood of meeting for at least a couple weeks of business in December. Roll Call: Lame Duck Could Drag On

Stupid Q: what good is it for the House to meet if the Senate is hom shopping for Thanksgiving turkeys?

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

The possibility of a very brief lame duck session sounds like more good news, even if slight.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k _Call Monday AM!
 

I just called the two senators that head up the DOD committee. The NROG is recommending we all call today.

When i asked Sen Levin' aide what the Senator's view was. He said he was not sure and was getting ready to discuss the matter.
so if u get a chance call him soon:
202 224-6221 Sen Levin

other one is Sen Warner 202 224- 2023

Just say you are against Sen Frist trying to attach his anti gambling bill with the DOD appropriations bill.
(i gave my name & they did not ask if i lived in their state).

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

Regarding the Senate's intention for a short lame-duck: "the best laid plans of mice and men..."

CNN is definitely right to point out that election results will bear heavily on the lame-duck. Big Democrat wins could mean that almost nothing happens, for instance (the Senate Democrats would filibuster every bill in this scenario, knowing that they could return in a few weeks and pass those same bills in a fashion much more to their liking with the enhanced majorities won in November).

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

It would seem to be in the Dems favour to see that no bills pass this week. They have little to lose and everything to gain. Am I stating the obvious, or am I missing something?

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

So each new democrat that wins a seat in the house is +EV for us?

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
So each new democrat that wins a seat in the house is +EV for us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. A specific dem could be for a ban while their specific opponent is against it but the house bills had more support from Republicans than Democrats.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

im slow, is this good?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/investi...p;in_page_id=3

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

Link no good?

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/investing-a...mp;in_page_id=3

This should work.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/investing-a...mp;in_page_id=3

This should work.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's awesome if the article is actually current. It might be rehashing stuff from late last week, even though it does specifically state "today" in the article.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/investing-a...mp;in_page_id=3

This should work.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's awesome if the article is actually current. It might be rehashing stuff from late last week, even though it does specifically state "today" in the article.

[/ QUOTE ]

ALL THIS (AND PRETTY MUCH ALL THIRD/FOURTH PARTY ARTICLES) IS IS SOME JOURNALIST'S INTERPRETATION OF EVERYTHING WE ALREADY KNOW. THE PEOPLE WRITING THE LANGUAGE AND FIGHTING OVER WHAT GETS ATTACHED OR DELAYED ARE NOT HOLDING PRESS CONFERENCES AND THEY ARE DEFINITELY NOT COMMITTING TO THE KIND OF ABSOLUTE STATEMENTS THAT WILL MAKE US FEEL BETTER.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The last-minute confrontation is pitting the House's most powerful member against Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), who has said he will not add extraneous measures to the annual defense authorization bill unless they can garner unanimous support from Democrats and Republicans alike."

[/ QUOTE ]

possible stupid question... if they can garner unanimous supoprt from Democrats and Repulicans alike why would they even need to attach it to the DoD bill? Couldn't they just spend 3 seconds of floor time to pass whatever stuff on its own?

[/ QUOTE ]

nobody wants to take a shot at this?

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The last-minute confrontation is pitting the House's most powerful member against Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), who has said he will not add extraneous measures to the annual defense authorization bill unless they can garner unanimous support from Democrats and Republicans alike."

[/ QUOTE ]

possible stupid question... if they can garner unanimous supoprt from Democrats and Repulicans alike why would they even need to attach it to the DoD bill? Couldn't they just spend 3 seconds of floor time to pass whatever stuff on its own?

[/ QUOTE ]

nobody wants to take a shot at this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Frist originally wanted to pass the bill itself by unanimous consent, and that is still a possibility. At this point that seems pretty unlikely though.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

The silence from Mr. K and Berge over the past 2 hours is deafening.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

We have jobs, you know.

As far as unanimous consent, they tried it, and there were "holds" on the bill. If you don't know what these are, use the search function -- lots of good discussion about them in July/August. Point is, Frist & Co. probably do not have the ability to move the bill via UC even after their deal with the horse tracks. I don't know who has the holds, but they seem to be out there, as UC would be the natural choice for Frist to move this sucker, but still he hasn't done it.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The last-minute confrontation is pitting the House's most powerful member against Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), who has said he will not add extraneous measures to the annual defense authorization bill unless they can garner unanimous support from Democrats and Republicans alike."

[/ QUOTE ]

possible stupid question... if they can garner unanimous supoprt from Democrats and Repulicans alike why would they even need to attach it to the DoD bill? Couldn't they just spend 3 seconds of floor time to pass whatever stuff on its own?

[/ QUOTE ]

nobody wants to take a shot at this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Frist originally wanted to pass the bill itself by unanimous consent, and that is still a possibility. At this point that seems pretty unlikely though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it seems like two issues could be at play here: 1.) There isn't unanimous support for the bill and therefore would not survive on the floor or (and more likely) 2.) it's just come down to crunch time before the session ends. They need to focus their attn. on the most important issues at hand and iGaming prohibition isn't going to be on the top of that list. Thus, Frist's tactics. I think, however, that both have got to be in play to some degree. At the same time, though, it's not like legislation is an easy process. It's extremely time consuming and quite a large process undergoes for anything to hit the floor. Not to mention, the floor agenda basically rests in one man's (one party's) hands, so they are going to focus on whatever is in their best interest. At this point there are so many "bigger" issues and so little time that Frist really doesn't have any other options.

Anyway, I think that's right, but not sure... take it fwiw. I'm pretty amateurish in my understanding of all of this.


jrbick

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
We have jobs, you know.

As far as unanimous consent, they tried it, and there were "holds" on the bill. If you don't know what these are, use the search function -- lots of good discussion about them in July/August. Point is, Frist & Co. probably do not have the ability to move the bill via UC even after their deal with the horse tracks. I don't know who has the holds, but they seem to be out there, as UC would be the natural choice for Frist to move this sucker, but still he hasn't done it.

[/ QUOTE ]


So while it wouldn't necessarily be "easy" to get it to the floor by itself, it isn't far from possible at this stage in the session?

If that's true then it's a good indication that this wouldn't pass by UC. All the more reason to draw attn. to Frist's attempts all across the board.


jrbick

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have jobs, you know.

As far as unanimous consent, they tried it, and there were "holds" on the bill. If you don't know what these are, use the search function -- lots of good discussion about them in July/August. Point is, Frist & Co. probably do not have the ability to move the bill via UC even after their deal with the horse tracks. I don't know who has the holds, but they seem to be out there, as UC would be the natural choice for Frist to move this sucker, but still he hasn't done it.

[/ QUOTE ]


So while it wouldn't necessarily be "easy" to get it to the floor by itself, it isn't far from possible at this stage in the session?

If that's true then it's a good indication that this wouldn't pass by UC. All the more reason to draw attn. to Frist's attempts all across the board.


jrbick

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea UC really isn't much of an issue anymore. If we were told that H.R. 4411 would never pass on its own, there would still be absolutely nothing to celebrate.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty amateurish in my understanding of all of this.


jrbick

[/ QUOTE ]


No man, you nailed it with your analysis there. Agree with most everything you said.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The last-minute confrontation is pitting the House's most powerful member against Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), who has said he will not add extraneous measures to the annual defense authorization bill unless they can garner unanimous support from Democrats and Republicans alike."

[/ QUOTE ]

possible stupid question... if they can garner unanimous supoprt from Democrats and Repulicans alike why would they even need to attach it to the DoD bill? Couldn't they just spend 3 seconds of floor time to pass whatever stuff on its own?

[/ QUOTE ]

nobody wants to take a shot at this?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's pretty simple, the amount of time left in the session and the priorities pretty much rule out the debate necessary on the senate floor to pass this bill through regular avenues before the house's term ends and it's version of the bill dies

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we were told that H.R. 4411 would never pass on its own, there would still be absolutely nothing to celebrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very true and important point. The game is almost entirely amendments to larger packages (taxes, defense, whatever) at this point, though you never completely close the door on the bill moving via UC.

Re: Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k
 

[ QUOTE ]
The silence from Mr. K and Berge over the past 2 hours is deafening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, going to be a crazy week (as you can see)