Update - Week of September 25th

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I'm a novice C-SPAN watcher. A short time ago, the announcer/narrator (whoever that is) said that the Defense authorization bill was coming up later today (in the House). Where does he get that information, and does it mean there's been some movement of the bill out of conference? Seems unlikely, but I don't know how else the bill could be coming up.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very likely the defense appropriations bill, not the authorization bill.

http://www.majoritywhip.gov/whippost.asp

"One Minutes

H.Res. 1038 - Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2679 - Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (Sponsored by Rep. Gingrey / Rules Committee)

H.Res. 1039 - Rule providing for consideration of S. 403 - Child Custody Protection Act (Sponsored by Rep. Gingrey / Rules Committee)

H.R. 2679 - Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (Closed Rule, One Hour of Debate) (Sponsored by Rep. Hostettler / Judiciary Committee)

H.Res. 1037 - Rule providing for consideration of Conference Report on H.R. 5631 - Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Sponsored by Rep. Cole / Rules Committee)

S. 403 - Child Custody Protection Act (Closed Rule, One Hour of Debate) (Sponsored by Sen. Ensign / Judiciary Committee)

Conference Report on H.R. 5631 - Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Rule Waives all Points of Order, One Hour of Debate) (Sponsored by Rep. Young (FL) / Appropriations Committee)

[Capitola]

[ QUOTE ]
This is very likely the defense appropriations bill, not the authorization bill.

[/ QUOTE ]
That could be, and it makes sense, but I was listening and I thought I clearly heard "authorization." Otherwise I would not have posted.

Could have been a slip of the tongue, I suppose. Either that or I need a hearing check and/or brain scan.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is very likely the defense appropriations bill, not the authorization bill.

[/ QUOTE ]
That could be, and it makes sense, but I was listening and I thought I clearly heard "authorization." Otherwise I would not have posted.

Could have been a slip of the tongue, I suppose. Either that or I need a hearing check and/or brain scan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who knows. It's a crazy week and anything is possible. But I don't think it's terribly likely that the damned C-SPAN narrator has the rest of the country scooped on this. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Berge20]

It is appropriations, not authorization. Slip of the tounge from CSPAN team or bad ears [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Mr.K]

Good to hear you're watching C-SPAN -- a very good, direct source for what's going on at any moment in the House and Senate.

The thing you raised is an easy one to screw up. I'll bet the announcer said the Defense Appropriations bill is coming up soon in the House, not the Defense Authorization bill. Sometimes even Washington insiders mix the two up, and I think you heard one and thought another when you were watching CSPAN. The first one, the appropriations, provides the money. The second one, the authorization, sets a plan to spend that money. Only the first one is actually needed, since DoD will come up with a plan if we don't tell them one via law.

Frist wants to attach the gambling bill to the second one -- the authorization -- and as far as I know that one is still in a holding pattern and unlikely to hit the floor any time in the immediate future. As always, this is subject to change...

[Mr.K]

Nate, Berge... great minds think alike.

[JuntMonkey]

LOL at 3 best posters making the same post all in a row.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
Until the DoD bill comes out of committee, we won't know the exact wording.

Right now, people are parsing second-hand news accounts with rose-colored glasses on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or morose-colored glasses, depending on the poster.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Until the DoD bill comes out of committee, we won't know the exact wording.

Right now, people are parsing second-hand news accounts with rose-colored glasses on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or morose-colored glasses, depending on the poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

I'm in my CongressDaily free trial period too, so let me be the first to post the PM update.

"The fate of the FY07 defense authorization bill remained uncertain today as House Speaker Hastert refused to back off his effort to attach unrelated, non-defense legislation to the measure. Senate Armed Services Chairman Warner has opposed making the defense bill a Christmas tree for other legislation, leading to a standoff with the speaker. Specifically, Hastert has threatened to shelve the bill unless Warner agrees to the addition of federal court security legislation and a Republican measure aimed at detaining and deporting immigrant gang members. Today, Hastert said he had received assurances from Senate Majority Leader Frist that Congress would consider both measures this week, perhaps as part of the defense authorization bill. "These promises have not been kept," Hastert said. [...]

House Majority Leader Boehner suggested today that the defense authorization measure is not a must-pass piece of legislation for lawmakers to consider before leaving to campaign for the midterm congressional elections. The House will vote tonight on the Defense appropriations bill, ensuring that FY07 funds are available to the military at the Oct. 1 start of the fiscal year. "Getting the authorization bill finished in the same time frame would be good for us," Boehner said. "It is not essential."

tl;dr: No movement yet, and if anything it sounds like the princpals in the matter are becoming resigned to this bill waiting until the lame duck session. But as with everything else this week, it's far, far, far from over until the fat gavel sounds.