Update - Week of September 25th

[NoLameDuck]

I have read the Memorandum that Warner sent to Frist which is referenced in the AP article published tonight. He suggests that all of the differences in the bills have been resolved.

Warner then objects to the desire by "a number of colleagues, almost all non-members of the defense committees" to attach nine or more "out-of-scope" bills to the conference report.

He then lists a number of precedents to his objections as follows. His words in quotes and my comments/questions in between the quotes:

"Section 102 or S.2349, The Legislative and Accountability Act of 2006 which passed the Senate on May 23, 2006 clearly expresses the views of the Senate that out-of-scope provisions are not to be included in conference reports"

So this was an agreement reached this year to prevent attachemnts? What happened?

"Rule 28 of the Standing Rules of the Senate make conference reports that include out-of-scope provisions subject to a point of order. (There is strong reason to believe a point of order will be raised should the conference report have out-of-scope bills attached.)"

"Riddick's Manual on Senate Procedure requires that a conference report have a majority of signatures of the conferees in order to be considered by the Senate. I know of three signatures on the Republican side, mine and two others, in opposition to including out-of-scope bills. There may be others who share our view."

Isn't this the meat of his threat? He says he won't sign.

"Further, the Ranking Member, Carl Levin, has given me a letter stating 'I am prepared to sign, a conference that conforms to the one that you and I have discussed, provided no out-of-scope bills are added to it.'"

"Consequently, there are not even sufficient signatures to effect a partisan Republican report, 13 signatures being required."

He then goes on to cite the Constitution, specifically a mandate in Article 1, Section 7 which says the Committee needs to raise and discipline the army and navy. He then closes with:

"Given the gravity of public concern for our Service persons today, and their families, especially those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, I feel very strongly it is in the Nation's interest we continue this tradition of bipartisanship."

A pretty impressive rebuke of the Senate Majority leader.

[ZBTHorton]

[ QUOTE ]
I have read the Memorandum that Warner sent to Frist which is referenced in the AP article published tonight. He suggests that all of the differences in the bills have been resolved.

Warner then objects to the desire by "a number of colleagues, almost all non-members of the defense committees" to attach nine or more "out-of-scope" bills to the conference report.

He then lists a number of precedents to his objections as follows. His words in quotes and my comments/questions in between the quotes:

"Section 102 or S.2349, The Legislative and Accountability Act of 2006 which passed the Senate on May 23, 2006 clearly expresses the views of the Senate that out-of-scope provisions are not to be included in conference reports"

So this was an agreement reached this year to prevent attachemnts? What happened?

"Rule 28 of the Standing Rules of the Senate make conference reports that include out-of-scope provisions subject to a point of order. (There is strong reason to believe a point of order will be raised should the conference report have out-of-scope bills attached.)"

"Riddick's Manual on Senate Procedure requires that a conference report have a majority of signatures of the conferees in order to be considered by the Senate. I know of three signatures on the Republican side, mine and two others, in opposition to including out-of-scope bills. There may be others who share our view."

Isn't this the meat of his threat? He says he won't sign.

"Further, the Ranking Member, Carl Levin, has given me a letter stating 'I am prepared to sign, a conference that conforms to the one that you and I have discussed, provided no out-of-scope bills are added to it.'"

"Consequently, there are not even sufficient signatures to effect a partisan Republican report, 13 signatures being required."

He then goes on to cite the Constitution, specifically a mandate in Article 1, Section 7 which says the Committee needs to raise and discipline the army and navy. He then closes with:

"Given the gravity of public concern for our Service persons today, and their families, especially those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, I feel very strongly it is in the Nation's interest we continue this tradition of bipartisanship."

A pretty impressive rebuke of the Senate Majority leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea who you are, but I like you.

[Berge20]

Nice find

Guess people no longer care as much about Frists status since he's on his way out.

[MannyIsGod]

So basicaly the chairman is telling Frist to go [censored] himself?

I'm just trying to make sure I read the hill-speak correctly.

[Berge20]

That's how I read it

[MannyIsGod]

Bravo for Warner. It makes me happy when our leaders kill a little bit of the cynic in me.

[Wynton]

I haven't read the AP article, so perhaps I'm not understanding the context of Warner's memorandum.

But is this really an unusual rebuke coming from a senior senator? I thought senators routinely deviated from the leadership, particularly when they've been around for awhile.

Is this rebuke more notable because it is public? Was the memorandum even intended for public consumption?

[Mr.K]

This rebuke is strong in part because it is so direct, and in part because it is (now) public... are we sure that is really his memo, though? I have been engaged in my real job and am not up to speed on this AM's developments. Frist is clearly losing his standing among the Senate Republicans, something that has been coming for a long time. This memo may or may not be a part of that.

[NoLameDuck]

He definitely released this to the media. If you read the AP article link below, the references to his memo are consistent with the one I read.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap3047329.html

This shows how big the rift in the Party is. And it shows how far Frist and Hastert went. I am sure Warner told them he would go to the media if they made him. They called his bluff; only he had Aces.