So the debate over whether or not to end debate on the question of whether to begin debate on the Wall Street reform bill is coming to an end.
Offhand, I'd say Ezra Klein hit the nail on the head with this one.
So what does it all mean? We'll be able to tell a little better what's happening as the afternoon and evening play out. The agreement from Republicans to let the bill proceed could mean several things, ranked roughly in order of desirability:
- Republicans could agree not to object to an unanimous consent request to proceed either:
- immediately to the consideration of the Wall Street reform bill itself, or;
- at some later date and time certain (perhaps next Monday) to consideration of the bill.
- Republicans could continue to insist on votes on cloture and/or on the motion to proceed, but either:
- agree by unanimous consent to have a vote (either immediately or at some specific time) on the motion to proceed, which motion would require just a simple majority to pass or;
- some number of them will agree to change their vote such that cloture can be invoked, after which:
- everyone could agree to yield back all post-cloture time (30 hours) and proceed immediately to yet another vote, this time on the motion to proceed itself, which presumably would, as part of the deal, either pass by a majority vote or by unanimous consent, and put us at that time on debate of the bill, or;
- Republicans could insist on using some or all of the 30 post-cloture hours before deciding to either demand a vote on the motion to proceed (which would require a simple majority) or agree by unanimous consent to pass the motion to proceed.
None of those possibilities, however, by themselves imply any deal having been struck on the still-possible filibuster of the Wall Street reform bill itself. That means that until we hear the terms of the deal, it's entirely possible that Republicans are only agreeing to stop filibustering the motion to proceed, planning to let Mitch McConnell go home for the Kentucky Derby weekend, and then return to DC next week to filibuster the bill instead of the motion.
Why would anyone want another vote on the motion to proceed if it's obvious from previous vote totals that such a motion would definitely pass; or on cloture if there's a deal to get out of the way? Well, if Republicans are still thinking they benefit by being on the record in opposition, they could actually want another such vote, just to register one more objection and waste just a little more of the Senate's time. But if they're actually coming to the conclusion that this is a losing battle (as opposed to just wanting to do McConnell the favor of letting him go home), they might prefer instead to avoid another such vote, and go with an unanimous consent agreement instead.
Because honoring the deal while insisting on another cloture vote would require some Republicans to switch their votes, it's less likely that they'll want to do that. Also, it's a huge waste of time when just a moderate waste of time will do the trick.
So I'm guessing they'll just agree some time tonight to an unanimous consent request to either schedule a vote on the motion to proceed some time tonight or tomorrow, or else just to begin debate on the underlying bill, probably with the understanding that no one will move for cloture and debate will stretch out into next week, but with no voting on amendments until then.
UPDATE: During the writing of this post, it was announced that the Senate will be going with what amounts to option 2(a) above, that is, the one that goes, "Republicans could continue to insist on votes on cloture and/or on the motion to proceed, but... agree by unanimous consent to have a vote (either immediately or at some specific time) on the motion to proceed, which motion would require just a simple majority to pass."
It looks like they've agreed to simply go right to a vote on the motion to proceed, mooting the cloture motion and its reconsideration. Apparently Susan Collins (R-ME) has indicated that she may vote yes on the motion to proceed at this point, and she may not be the only one. That'll give them something of a mixed record on this, but they'll likely cling to the thin reed that there's a new "deal" in place, even though no one really knows what that deal is, or how it's any different from just having gone into debate and the amendment process when they asked for a vote the first time.
UPDATE 2: They're back on the floor now, and if I heard right, they just adopted the motion to proceed by unanimous consent and set a schedule for the consideration of the manager's amendment tomorrow. So that's really closer to option 1 than option 2(a). And that's good!