Good afternoon, Daily Kos readers. This is your afternoon open thread to discuss all things Hill-related. Use this thread to praise or bash Congresscritters, share a juicy tip, ask questions, offer critiques and suggestions, or post manifestos. We'll be here all weekend.
Two programing notes. First this column might not appear everyday next week. I have my comprehensive exams, which determine whether or not it was worth it to drop 40 grand on my masters degree.
Second, I actually filled out a bracket and it is already shot to hell. I just found another reason to despise Georgetown. As a Democrat I should have went with more underdogs.
This is an open source project, so feel free to add your own insights. Here's the news I found lurking around the Internets...
The Byrd Scrub
Note: The House Rules Committee has posted the reconciliation bill in .pdf format here. Open Congress has ripped the full text of the bill from the .pdf and posted it as text here.
This is an amusing little bit of Hill parlance. House Democrats have given the health care bill the "Byrd Scrub." In other words, they have taken out the bits that would violate the Byrd rules when it goes to the Senate for a vote on reconciliation.
Pelosi: Dems have 'scrubbed' health bill for Senate passage
House Democrats have sought to prevent their healthcare bill from facing further changes that would require another House vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday.
Pelosi, during a press conference on Capitol Hill, said she'd put the healthcare package on which House Democrats will vote this weekend through a "Byrd scrub" in an effort to prevent parliamentary challenges in the Senate.
"We've tried to have a 'Byrd scrub,' " Pelosi said, referring to the Senate rule named after Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) that requires that legislative changes made under reconciliation rules be strictly related to budgetary issues.
And yes, that's the same Robert Byrd who has been in the Senate almost as long as West Virginia has been a state.
Reconciliation was included as an optional procedure in the 1974 Budget Act. The most important thing that the act did was to streamline the budget process. Reconciliation is an optional measure aimed at reducing expenses or raising revenue. Since these are typically unpopular but necessary votes, debate in the Senate is limited to 20 hours -- the legislative equivalent of clearing one's throat. Theoretically, that protects reconciliation bills from the filibuster. Of course that doesn't prevent other dilatory measures like offering hundreds of amendments.
Reconciliation was first used in 1980 but the Senate ran into problems, most notably that some provisions offered under reconciliation did not have anything to do with the budget. In 1985 and 1986, the Senate adopted the temporary Byrd Rules. These are guidelines drawn up primarily by Senator Byrd. In order to waive the Byrd Rule or to overrule the chair ruling on the applicability of the Byrd Rule requires 60 affirmative votes. The Byrd Rule was included in the Senate rules in 1990.
You can read the full report from Congressional Research Service on the Byrd Rule (.pdf link) here.
****
More healthcare tidbits
It's probably premature to call this the endgame. On the left, Rep. Alan Grayson will most likely continue to push HR 4789, which would open Medicare to everyone. This would effectively be a public option with the added benefit of not needing a whole new bureaucracy. The bill has 80 co-sponsors and I think Speaker Pelosi would be a fool not to at least allow a vote on it.
From Democracy Now on Wednesday, an interview with Rep. Grayson:
Rep. Alan Grayson’s "Medicare You Can Buy Into Act" Attracts 50 Co-Sponsors
With the Democrat-led push for healthcare reform in its final stages, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) introduces "The Public Option Act," a measure that would allow people under sixty-five to buy into Medicare. The bill has attracted fifty co-sponsors. Grayson joins us to discuss the measure and healthcare reform overall, his own family’s experience with private insurance companies and more.
I guess that means he added 30 co-sponsors in two days.
Meanwhile, Bart Stupak is still pushing his coathanger Amendment.
Via Wonkroom:
Stupak: Democrats Considering Voting For Tighter Abortion Restrictions In ‘Tie Bar’ Bill
This morning, during an appearance on Good Morning America, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) reaffirmed that he might vote for the Senate health care bill if Democrats pass the Stupak abortion amendment as a separate measure. Stupak said that Democrats have shown a "renewed" interest in tying his amendment to the Senate bil
~snip
Obviously, the very fact that Democrats may be negotiating with Stupak illustrates just how pressed Pelosi is for votes, but I wonder if Democrats can’t just tie bar the Senate bill to current law. That is, if Democrats absolutely need to peel off more Stupak votes, why not just vote on the Hyde amendment — which Congress renews annually. It’s less restrictive than the Stupak language and it would relieve the concerns of moderate Democrats who worry that the bill does not explicitly extend current law to community health centers.
Of course, David Waldman is here to explain how that would all work.
In other whipping news, Rep. Stephen Lynch insists that Speaker Pelosi has plenty of votes to pass a bill that he thinks is "surrender."
via Mother Jones:
Lynch: Why Obama Didn't Convince Me on Health Care
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass), who switched from "yes" to "no" on the health reform bill, is insisting that his vote will not kill the legislation, noting that the House Democrats have the votes to pass the measure this weekend without his support. He also says that during a meeting with President Barack Obama on Thursday, the president failed to win him over with a promise to make the reform package more progressive down the road.
Lynch slams the legislation as "a poor bill" that would continue the worst elements of the status quo. In explaining his switch, Lynch cites the absence of a public option, the failure to repeal the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies, and the inclusion of the excise tax on high-end insurance plans. (These are some of the key differences between the final bill and the House version, which he had supported.) "There's a difference between compromise and surrender, and this bill is surrender," Lynch tells Mother Jones. "It's a surrender to the insurance companies, it's a surrender to the pharmaceutical companies."
Lynch is not a co-sponsor of Alan Grayson's bill.
A good comprehensive story about the current state of the bill and its components comes from The New Republic:
Health Care Reform's Finished Draft (Updated)
Democrats have submitted the final draft of health care reform. It should get a good grade.
After weeks of negotiation, they have agreed upon a set of amendments to the Senate health care bill. The changes mean the package as a whole will cover more people, and save more money, than the Senate bill would have originally. House Democratic leaders are saying enactment would produce biggest deficit reduction act in 17 years. House Majority Whip James Clyburn described himself as "giddy."
And just as soon as we do everything that we are politically able to do to help millions of Americans get medical care, the Republicans plan to promptly cave to the health insurance lobby and work to repeal the bill.
Boehner warns Dems the healthcare debate won’t end with vote
House Minority Leader John Boehner warned vulnerable Democrats that the healthcare debate won’t end after President Barack Obama signs the bill into law.
Pledging to do "everything [he] can to defeat the bill," the top-ranking House Republican said on Friday that "the American people are going to hear about every payoff, every kickback and every sweetheart deal that comes at them."
The Ohio lawmaker singled out a "new" questionable deal that he dubbed the "Bismarck Bank Job," but did not go into specifics on the deal.
Sadly for the House Minority Leader, Senator Kent Conrad has already dropped the "Bismarck Bank Job."
Conrad Asks House Dems To Drop Favor For Bank
Thanks, but no thanks, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota is telling House Democrats over a sweet deal for his home state. He's asking House leaders to pull the plug on a Dakota-friendly provision in the health care package.
The item is on page 145 of the reconciliation bill, and has nothing to do with health care. Instead, it involves an overhaul of the federal student loan program, which is a controversy in itself but was added to the reconciliation by Democrats looking for budget sweeteners.
The overhaul would eliminate federal subsidies for private lenders -- except for (here comes Conrad) the Bank of North Dakota.
Thanks for playing Mr. Minority Leader. We have some lovely parting gifts including the home version of "Keeping Up With The Senate."
****
Immigration Reform
Lindsey Graham is not up for reelection until 2014. Perhaps that is why he is committing the ultimate political sin by (*gasp) working with Democrats. We already know that Senator Graham has aligned himself with John Kerry and Joe Lieberman on a global warming bill. Today, he co-authored an op-ed in the Washington Post with Chuck Shumer about immigration reform.
The right way to mend immigration
Our immigration system is badly broken. Although our borders have become far more secure in recent years, too many people seeking illegal entry get through. We have no way to track whether the millions who enter the United States on valid visas each year leave when they are supposed to. And employers are burdened by a complicated system for verifying workers' immigration status.
~snip
Our plan has four pillars: requiring biometric Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; fulfilling and strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement; creating a process for admitting temporary workers; and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here.
The provisions are not completely progressive friendly, but they seem fair enough. At least there is nothing about establishing an official language or deploying the military to our Southern border.
****
New Primary Laws
A provision in last year's Defense Bill may force some states, including Maryland and the District of Columbia, to reschedule their primary elections.
New law may require D.C., Md. to abandon Sept. primary dates
Every four years, for more than three decades, voters in Maryland and the District have been going to the polls for primary elections in September after the kids are back in school and the summer travel season had ended.
But after the 2010 elections, the traditional September primary might become as extinct as the hand-counted ballot, as states begin abiding by a new federal law designed to make voting easier for overseas service members.
As part of a defense spending bill approved in October, Congress enacted the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, which requires that service members receive absentee ballots at least 45 days before the November general election. But state elections officials say that will make it impossible for them to wait until September to choose nominees.
The story also points out that Minnesota had to change the date of their primaries. All politics are local and this will change the dynamic of primary challenges in some states (and DC). It's not a particularly bad thing, but something to keep in mind, especially in congressional districts that rarely attract strong competition from the opposition party. In DC, for example, Eleanor Holmes Norton has attracted a primary challenger, Doug Sloan. No Republican is going to win this seat, so the September primary will be the deciding vote. In two years, that vote will be even earlier, which changes fund raising, GOTV, and paid media strategies.
Full disclosure: I have done some volunteer consulting work for Mr. Sloan.
****
OTC Derivatives
This one is presented without further comment as I don't even know what over the counter derivatives are all about or why they need regulated.
Key Senators Fail to Reach OTC Derivatives Pact
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senators charged with crafting rules to regulate the $450 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market have failed to reach an agreement, Democratic Senator Jack Reed said on Friday.
Reed and Republican Senator Judd Gregg had been trying to write rules to shed light on the private swaps market but disagreed on which parties should be allowed exemptions.
"We were not able to reach a comprehensive consensus that would fill dangerous gaps while allowing companies to safely use derivatives to hedge their risks," Reed said in a statement.
****
Fracking
Natural gas is probably one of the keys to reducing green house gasses and weaning the country off of unstable foreign oil supplies. The problem is getting to the gas. In recent years, the drilling companies have focused on the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio. They have been using a process known as hydrofracking, or simply "fracking."
From Source Watch:
Fracking (also often referred to as hydrofracking) is a process in which a fluid is injected at high pressure into an oil or a natural gas deposit to fracture the rock and release the liquid or gas below.
This process pollutes ground water supplies and often leads to major drilling operations in otherwise pristine mountain areas. Now that the drilling is underway and the damage is being done, the Environmental Protection Agency will "study" the problem.
Federal EPA to study hydraulic fracturing
The EPA launched yesterday a two-year, $1.9 million study to determine whether hydraulic fracturing, the oil- and gas-production technique used in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale region, is a danger to groundwater supplies.
"The study will be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process, with significant stakeholder input," said Paul T. Anastas of the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
The process, called "fracking," involves injecting water and chemicals into wells under high pressure to break up the source rock to unlock oil and natural gas. Along with horizontal-drilling technology, it has transformed formerly uneconomical drilling sites into lucrative ones.
By the way, it was Halliburton who foisted this atrocity on us. Thanks, Dick.
****
...and seven years ago
Finally, The Most Important News of the Day™ grimly notes that the invasion of Iraq started seven years ago today. Prayers and respects for the dead; all the support in the world for the wounded; and here's hoping our soldiers will be out of that mess soon.
From al-Jazeera:
Seeking a 'real' end to Iraq War
On the eve of the the seventh anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, American anti-war activists are still calling for a real end to a conflict that has now lasted longer than both world wars and the American Civil War.
As the anti-war movement gears up for rallies and demonstrations on the anniversary, many are emphasising long-term organising and movement-building, rooted in a strategy of GI resistance.
Seth Manzel, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) and director of the Tacoma, Washington-based GI Voice, says: "As an Iraq veteran, it really sickens me to see an eighth year of deployments to Iraq. People are being torn apart by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it needs to stop."
Here's a few Iraq reactions:
Robert Greenwald says:
No "mission" was accomplished in Iraq because we went to war on false pretenses. We failed the moment we invaded.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) says:
All I can say is the people, everybody I know thinks it was a mistake to go in now.
Greg Mitchell of The Nation says:
What we have heard from commentators, again, this year is that the United States went to war with the overwhelming support of the public and the press. Actually, this is a myth.
Richard Engel says:
In many ways the political system in Iraq today is similar to the one in Lebanon, where I just arrived on my way out of Baghdad.
~snip
If Iraq is unlucky, however, the battles among the political parties in Baghdad could easily become violent and Iraq could be plagued with reoccurring bouts of sectarian violence, mini-civil wars that last hours, days or months, but continue to break out like an uncured rash.
Finally from Fredrick W. Kagan and Kimberly Kagan:
America and Iraq now have a chance to solidify a peaceful, democratic, multi-ethnic and cross-sectarian state at the heart of the Arab world. It's also a chance to replace more than 30 years of Saddam Hussein's vicious oppression and regional destabilization with a prosperous, free and stable Iraq. We have that chance because of the courage and resilience of the Iraqi people and the talents and sacrifices of America's soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen and civilians.
On a personal note, seven years ago I was watching the initial invasion with a rather conservative gentleman, who happened to be my boss. I remember saying that I hope we win this thing, but I'm afraid we will be in Iraq for years. I wish I had been wrong that day. The best hope for something resembling a "win" is if the Kagen's optimistic prediction is correct.