Update - Week of September 25th

[Zele]

Post deleted by Berge20

[Keepitsimple]

What are the odds of this passing right now?

And if it passes. Will it be impossible to play or just illegal? I think a lot of fish are degenerates that cant quit.

[MiltonFriedman]

Post deleted by Berge20

[DrewOnTilt]

Post deleted by Berge20

[Berge20]

I'm cleaning this post up. We got way, way, way off track on anything even remotely useful.

If you have issues with NROG please do not post them in this thread. I understand why it started and to an extent agree, but in the spirit of cooperation we need to be civil.

This thread needs to be about information, not flaming.

I suck at deleting and editing in mass degree....had hoped to clear it up more, but this is best I can do on short time schedule

[Berge20]

Conference committees are (in my experience) normally rarely official meetings where differences are ironed out, debated, etc.

Most meetings occur informally or on a staff level where the differences get resolved. Obviously the bigger conflicts must be decided at the member level, but dont expect anything like official meetings of the conference committee daily.

Heck, the last major bill I was involved with the official committee met once to open the conference...we didnt even do an official end, just gathered signatures.

As for holding up a DoD bill on what I'll dub more important matters (obviously not for us, but in the larger scheme)....it is possible members will try and block it, but the political hot potato you are asking for by filibustering anything military/security related probably isnt worth the trouble at this point.

After the elections, perhaps it is less of a concern.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
Conference committees are (in my experience) normally rarely official meetings where differences are ironed out, debated, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer on this is: it depends. On appropriations bills, there are often formal conference meetings where things are debated -- sometimes, there are even amendments offered and voted on. As Berge said, there is a lot of wheeling and dealing at the staff/lobbyist level in conferences, and many of the smaller decisions are worked out at that level.

On the DoD Authorization bill, I am not sure if there will be a formal conference meeting -- there may have been a few meetings in recent weeks, but given where things stand with only a few days left, I doubt there will be a meeting if they do get an agreement. What they'd probably do is send around the conference report to be signed and just end it at that.

[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.