U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 07, 2009 10:05 PM UTC
32 Comments
Loading ...
…what is the Steering Committee and why is it of particular importance to this legislation?
the Steering and Policy Committee could probably influence the leadership to do something about the bill. As it stands, Pelosi and Hoyer will probably basically rollover and take the Senate version of the bill.
The committee itself effectively decides committee appointments and the general direction the party will take in the House. JP is the lone member of the freshman class on the committee.
Seriously, where do you find any support for that contention other than on blogs?
And Steering is an arm of the leadership, not the other way around. It’s not getting involved in pressuring the speaker over this.
That two brand new-comers to Steering and Appropriations will have an influence over how the House approaches the stimulus out of the Senate … well, I appreciate your Always Buy Colorado sentiment here, but that’s not who is making the decision or bringing meaningful pressure.
I just wanted to see if JP would chime in…which he did.
Of course the S&P and/or Approps aren’t going to pressure the Speaker…but I can wish, right? Polis and Salazar were the only way I could connect it to CO.
Can they filibuster after a bill comes from conference committee? My understanding is that all the debate and amendments comes before conference committee, but once a bill is released from conference committee, it is an up or down vote.
As it stands, the Senate has made a MUCH MUCH worse bill on the fringe of being utterly useless (the bill needs to be big and needs to focus more on spending and less on tax cuts, and needs more aid for states and the poor).
It will be devastating to the country if the Senate bill is what passes. The only real hope is going to conference committee, having the Democrats take charge in reinstating an effective bill, and then getting it through both chambers, even if it takes a narrow, party-line vote.
I’d love for “bipartisanship” here, but the stakes are too high and the Republicans too worthless so far in this debate. If the Senate bill has become so bad so as not to be much benefit over doing nothing, they might as well force the Republicans to take clear blame if the necessary solution fails.
They can’t filibuster a budget reconciliation bill…which this is not.
Collins and Lieberman have both suggested that if the bill doesn’t come out of conference under $800B they may well vote against it. Because of that, Dems can’t really take charge and make this a good bill b/c it will be filibustered when it comes back to the Senate.
the potential filibuster really isn’t the big deal here. The bill needs 60 votes regardless of whether or not it’s filibustered. I find it amazing that the media basically ignores this point…and even more amazed the Senate leadership doesn’t bother explaining it so at least a few people wouldn’t be as pissed about this.
There’s a budgetary point of order against increasing deficit spending. To waive that point of order, you need a 3/5 majority – 60 votes. I guess they could finagle their way around it (stranger things have been done), but then short of 60 votes you get a filibuster anyway.
Senate rules blow. Hard.
Yeah, I didn’t know about this other super-majority requirement. It almost makes sense (certainly there were various points of order in the council I sat on that legitimately required a super-majority vote). Still, it is a pretty pathetic indication of the quality of our political institutions when even in the most dire of times we cannot really accomplish anything. Unfortunately the same things that make it bad prevent it from being fixed.
All of these rules from the 3/5 on funding to filibusters are actually in place by majority vote. So 51 Senators could vote to suspend all those rules for a day and then pass the bill with 51 votes.
I’d prefer to not see this happen as the super-majority requirements saved this country’s ass when the Republicans had a majority. But without a decent stimulus bill, we’re headed for another depression.
when we were in the minority, since we hardly used it except for the occasional nutjob judicial appointment. The idea that every single piece of legislation will be filibustered is new since 2007.
to take that vote on changing the rules votes, you’d need to have a debate…one that would take 60 votes to end by invoking cloture.
The only way around that is the “nuclear option.”
I think these are all cloture is a rule and the rule is set by majority vote as it’s not legislation. That’s what the nuclear option threatened back over the judges was all about.
Could you clarify your point?
You suggested the Senate suspend its rules for a day and pass the legislation with a simple majority. Suspending the rules of the Senate isn’t something that can be done with a simple majority. Neither can waiving a point of order. These are well established precedents, not a matter of opinion…
Well, if the Republicans are to be trusted, there is most surely a way to use a simple majority vote to change Senate rules, since they threatened to do that to get rid of the filibuster.
I for one, advocate the Democrats using the nuclear option, using the dire situation as cover. It seems like the only political mood that might actually support getting rid of the filibuster rule. Unfortunately, the Democrats do not have the party unity necessary for such a move.
Hence the reason I said, “The only way around that is the ‘nuclear option.'” No easy fixes, just a questionable parliamentary tactic…
The nuclear option is a rule change, and you stated that a rule change (in this case on PayGo) would require debate and the vote could be filibustered. If that were true, then the nuclear option would not be an option.
I was talking about changing a rule without using the nuclear option. Creating a new rule would require ‘moving the question’ to change that rule…a motion that could be filibustered.
The nuclear option works because it forces a vote on a ruling from the chair. The normal process of changing the rules obviously wouldn’t involve such an action.
The bottom line is that changing, suspending, or creating a rule to get past this impasse requires the use of the nuclear option in some way. Whether you use it to waive a point of order or bring (force) the debate to a close, the point is that the nuclear option itself is the only way to avoid a 60 (or 67) vote requirement.
They have changed the rules over time. And every change was contentious. I also like the fact normally that the Senate acts as a bit of a brake on stuff.
But when weighing out an unending recession vs the optimal way to structure the Senate, I think this does need to be considered.
Or they talk on the QT with the Republicans and tell them to back off and let the 3 or 4 Senators who want to vote for it do so with no blow-back.
David, the reason the nuclear option is so described (by Trent Lott, who coined the term in 2005 when the majority GOP threatened to use the rarely-invoked parliamentary maneuver to end a filibuster on conservative judges with a simple majority vote) is because it threatens to destroy the operation of the Senate.
When Bill Frist came close to using it in 2005, Democrats promised mutually assured destruction, that they would tie up the Senate’s business and bring proceedings to a standstill. That’s what led to the creation of the Gang of 14, which brokered a compromise over judicial votes and held the nuclear option at bay, keeping the Senate functioning.
The Republicans are just as capable of retaliating the same as Democrats threatened, and there’s no reason to believe they’d back off “for the good of the country” if Reid trod where Frist feared to go.
But yeah, having a QT discussion and suggesting they back off — good idea. That’ll fly.
Frankly, if I were a Democrat threatening to used the nuclear option, my goal wouldn’t be for the Republicans to give in, it would be to get rid of the filibuster.
We heard about the Senate deal while at our retreat in Williamsburg, and most of our caucus was concerned about the cuts but also happy that the Senate will finally move the legislation.
The capital construction aid to schools that would have provided districts with money to modernize and green their buildings is popular with our caucus as an important part of the stimulus, but the Senate left it out of their version.
We will work to iron out our differences with the Senate, and President Obama wants us to act soon to pass the final bil. The Recovery Package is a critical part of Obama’s agenda and I expect the House to continue to support his policies and goals in the recovery.
Congressman Jared Polis
Polis.House.Gov
that the conference committee could keep the package under $800 billion (so Sens. Collins, Snowe and Spector stay on board) while rearranging the priorities closer to what the House passed?
Report a bill back out of conference at say 750B so all the Republicans complaining about the price tag can’t complain.
Remove all of those little items that are not a stimulus. It’s peanuts, less important than the recession, and shows that you are responding to the Republican complaints on that issue.
But…
Keep every bit of spending, assistance to the states, education (K-12 & college) money, etc. in it. And get it down to 750B by reducing the tax cuts. That takes out the part that does zilch to turn things around.
I don’t know if it would fly but it would make a better bill and it would make it much harder for the Republicans to fight it. It definitely gives the 3 or 4 Republican senators looking for cover to vote for it enough to do so.
They’ve made the debate not so much about spending vs. tax cuts, but about the price tag.
David, how do you do that? All the “little items” are spending items, so can’t be removed without violating your second edict.
actually amount to no more than 1%, as has been the mantra this past week, that won’t take out over 50 billion from an 800 billion plus package, Dave.
Suspect that the Senate compromise will pretty much be what goes to the President with no more than a bare minimum of insignificant House tweaks to make the point that they’re not just rolling over. Either that or breakdown or all out war with the nuclear option back on the table. Don’t think that’s in the cards.
Prez needs this victory, even if it isn’t all he wants, and I suspect he’s going to get it, in spite of being saddled with the likes of Reid and Pelosi for leadership. What a pair!
a crumbling economy, a continuing disastrous loss of jobs, more and more people suffering, and in turn, serious impacts to businesses. The economists who understand what is going on are not exaggerating when they use words such as crisis, disaster, economic abyss. Congress has not been held in the highest esteem in recent years by the people. This is truly a test – can Congress be functional enough to do the right thing at the right time?
Thank you for posting.
I was under the impression from our abbreviated newspaper articles and the NYT that the education cuts were to help States recover their proposed cuts to capital construction projects, not necessarily to green the buildings.
of cuts to education money from the stimulus package.
It’s an excellent third book on the life of LBJ. It has a very good section describing the US Senate and the use of the rules to stall legislation.
It’s also offers good exposure to the 1957 Civil Rights Bill (the first, though much weaker than the 1964 act)
The President wants a bill very soon. I suspect that the house will yield far more than the Senate.
Absolutely you do not want to make perfect the enemy of good enough. However, an equally big danger is that we expend this gigantic amount of money to no effect.
And if that happens its not just a loss of money and additional time of the economy going south, but it also will lead to the voters losing trust that the government can fix things. If we hit that point people will hunker down and we will lose support for any more large actions.
So compromise as needed to get it passed, but only to the extent that we still have something that can have a significant beneficial effect.
On the flip side if the 3 Republicans insist on truly gutting the bill as opposed to some minor changes to give them cover, then we need to fight for a useful bill and have Obama and the Democrats bring every bit of pressure on the Republican Senators.