Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k

[JuntMonkey]

[ 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.

[JuntMonkey]

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

[Mr.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.

[jrbick]

[ 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

[jrbick]

[ 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

[JuntMonkey]

[ 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.

[Mr.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.

[FatalError]

[ 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

[Mr.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.

[Berge20]

[ 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)