I watched a bit of the Senate debate on the Ethics Bill yesterday. Sens. McConnell and Gregg were arguing for an amendment on a line-item veto. They wanted a vote on it. Reid didn’t want a vote on a line-item veto because it wasn’t germane to an ethics bill. McConnell and Gregg insisted it was germane because it had to do with earmarks. Reid said no, it wasn’t germane so they could go stuff it. Reid said there would be a vote at 12:38am and no Gregg amendment. So, I went to sleep thinking there would be a vote on the ethics bill. I woke up and couldn’t find a record of the vote. Now I know why.
“It’s as obvious as the sun coming up somewhere in this world that they tried to kill this bill,” a furious Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said last night in an interview. “And all 21 Republican senators up for reelection are going to have to explain how they brought down the most significant reform ever to come before this Congress. They brought this baby down.”
Oh, snap!! What happened? The vote to cut off debate (cloture) only gathered 51 votes, not the needed sixty. The Republicans held firm. Reid and Durbin tried to negotiate out a later vote on Gregg’s bill, but apparently that effort was derailed by the objections of Robert Byrd. Byrd thinks the line-item veto is unconstitutional. And it has been ruled unconstitutional. Gregg’s bill, however, takes a little bit of a different approach. The old attempts at a line-item veto allowed the President to strike out individual spending items (subject, of course, to override). The Gregg bill would allow the President to make up a package or list of objectionable spending items and send them back to Congress for an up or down vote. If Congress votes with the President, then all that spending is stricken from the budget.
I’m not sure if that approach would pass constitutional muster. It might. Byrd doesn’t think so. I doubt many appropriators think so.
The larger question is why didn’t Reid back down and allow a vote on Gregg’s amendment? Would it have passed and poisoned the ethics bill? And what power does Byrd have to dictate whether Gregg’s bill gets a vote? I don’t know the answers to those questions.
Byrd or any Senator can remain on the floor and object to Gregg’s attempt to invoke the amendment. As long as Byrd or any other Senator who agrees with Byrd remains on the floor, Gregg can speak about his amendment, but he will not be able to perform any action upon it. Gregg and other Senators can file a cloture motion to derail Byrd’s objection, however. But instead Reid decided to not have a vote on Gregg’s amendment. Perhaps this can be resolved with a cloture vote on the Gregg amendment, for the votes to invoke cloture simply do not exist. Or perhaps they do, which is why Reid denied a vote altogether. But if an amendment is not germane, one can raise that objection, which requires sixty votes to override. Either way, Gregg needs sixty votes. Reid should allow Gregg to try to gather sixty votes.
I don’t think you have that right. The decision is whether to allow a vote on the amendment. Gregg’s bill can stand alone, or it can be attached as an amendment. Byrd can object to the stand alone bill, which I guess he did. But he can’t prevent Reid from attaching the bill to the Ethics Bill. All he can do filibuster the ethics bill in response, but he wouln’t win on that one. So Reid could have just attached the bill as an amendment and voted it down.
Why didn’t he?
I think Gregg’s amendment is an amendment, and one can object to the invocation of an amendment. Byrd objects, Byrd tells Reid to object, it is not granted a vote, and then cloture is invoked on the Ethics Bill. Cloture has failed, as Republicans want a vote on the Gregg amendment. The parliamentary options I discuss above were not taken, and cloture was invoked but failed. They can resolve it, but we have to ask if Reid and Byrd have the patience to even consider it. Because Byrd believes it is unconstitutional, the answer is probably no.
Because he didn’t have the votes?
I remain extremely sceptical of Reid’s interest in ethics reform. It wouldn’t shock me if he didn’t really want the bill to pass, as long as they can use the failure as a campaign issue against Republicans. The man is a brilliant tactician, but he’s so involved in the system I doubt he has any true interest in reforming it.
Could it be that the republicans still feel they are in charge of congress??!! They need to sit back and see if their seat in said body is of any jopardy this coming election of 08 before they get tooooo far out on things. Coward dubya has nothing to loose here but they do…so I would say beware senators..you just might loose your seat in said body of congress…sooner than you might want.
If this is unconstitutional then it is so! Plain and simple…no matter what party goes after this goodie. I am so sick and tired of the republicans still thinking they have the power to demand such things…The reason they do not have that power, is because they are not int he minority…plain and simple..and to those like leibermans,,better think twice before you jump head first into something that your state will not approve of…YOu might get more than impeached by your state…
Hi Booman, I watched this last night and maybe have some answers…Bryd has placed an objection on the bill, which Senators have the right to do, based on the amendment which the Reps. tried to have voted on. He came on the floor late last night and spoke briefly and powerfully, holding up the constitution as usual.
To clarify, it’s a Senator’s hold or objection, on proceeding further, not Byrd’s power to dictate holding a vote.
At least this is my understanding.
I’m confused by that because Reid did not agree to attach Gregg’s bill so it doesn’t make sense for Byrd to put a hold on the Ethics bill. He would only be putting a hold on a future vote on Gregg’s bill.
Gregg is trying to AMEND the ethics bill. Byrd is objecting to the AMENDMENT, and he has threatened to use any tactic available to block the BILL, if a bill is drafted and introduced in lieu of the amendment.
i am referring to the Gregg amendment and any bill Gregg may write. I do not believe Byrd is opposed to the ethics bill; he is opposed to Gregg’s policy, whether it be an amendement to the ethics bill or a separate bill Gregg may try to introduce at a later date.
I understand that.
But Reid did not agree to have a vote on the amendment so there was no reason for Byrd to put a hold. Cloture wasn’t successful in any case.
I think he just threatened to put a hold on a future vote on Gregg’s amendment as a BILL, which was being discussed.
Yes, and this is what I note in the comment just above the one to which I am responding. As I said in my first response, Reid can have a cloture vote or a vote on the germaneness of the Gregg amendment. Such votes will fail, and this will hopefully cut into the Republican block refusing to invoke cloture. I guess this will unfold next week.
I am getting more confused as we talk about this, but from what I gather, the Republican will not allow the ethics bill to come up without a vote on the amendment, therefore it is tabled for now and Dems, may bring it up again next week….
Yes, one can object to a bill, and one can object to the invocation of an amendment. One or one’s representative simply has to be on the floor to voice the objection.
I have to assume that the traditional media is awash with stories saying that the Dems are going to have to consider the nuclear option in order to pass necessary legislation over the objections of the obstructionist Republicans.
Right?
Right???
Don’t raise your voice like that, young man! š