Why Some Senators Are Falsely Claiming They Opposed the Omnibus
By: CR Staff | December 28th, 2015Just before Congress recessed for the remainder of 2015, it took up a massive $1.1 trillion omnibus. That massive spending package was negotiated behind closed doors and revealed to the nation in the wee hours of the morning on December 16th. The bill that a select few negotiators birthed, was over 2,000 pages long and presented to their colleagues as a take it or leave it option with no opportunity for amendments or input.
Given both the absurd price tag of the bill and a host of other issues with the bill, it is no surprise that members of Congress who had a hand in moving this legislation closer to the finish line would like to disown the finished product. Recently, CR was contacted by several Senators claiming they opposed the Omnibus and that by extension, our Liberty Score was inaccurate. These Senators claim because they checked the “no” box on the final passage vote that they have clean hands. Unfortunately for their constituents, it isn’t that simple.
One of the unique things about the Senate and the rules that provide for consideration of legislation is the ability for the minority to slow debate. When it comes to legislation such as these trillion dollar bills, those rules allow the minority to keep the bill in the sunlight just a bit longer. Any senator has the ability to object to ending debate on a bill. Given the absurd process that surrounded the conception of the Omnibus, the limited time frame under which it was considered, and the inability to offer amendments, it is reasonable that many senators would object to ending debate.
However, this objection can be overruled under Rule 22 in the Senate: the cloture rule. Cloture requires three fifths of all voting and present Senators to affirmatively shut off debate. In other words, they are forcing their colleagues to be quiet and move a bill one step closer to final passage.
The main difference between the procedural vote known as “cloture” and final passage is the number of votes required to advance a bill. Final passage is a simple majority, typically 51, while cloture requires three fifths, typically 60.
It is logical to assume that any senator that opposes or claims to oppose this massive omnibus would want to take every opportunity to weigh in on both the substance of the bill and the process by which it was conceived and considered. For any Senator to claim they oppose this bill yet vote to advance it would be illogical and inconsistent.
This latest Omnibus is a textbook example of what some of us at CR refer to as “live fire exercise” versus “cover votes.”
On the omnibus, there were four votes taken (cloture, motion to table, motion to wave a budget point of order, and final passage).As explained above, not all votes are equal.
It is important to understand why a member would have voted differently on cloture on the motion to proceed to the Omnibus versus the vote on a motion to table or final passage of the package. The short answer is that all the other votes were throw-away cover votes. The only vote that was meaningful was the vote on cloture to start debate.
Here is how it played out on December 18th in the Senate:
- The first vote was to end debate on a “Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendments to the Senate Amendments to H.R. 2029.This vote passed 72-26 (with Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) missing the votes);
- The second vote was a motion to table (to kill) the Omnibus, requiring 51 votes. That vote failed 31-67 (with two Senators not voting);
- The third vote was on a budget point of order that was waived. This vote required 60 votes to waive, and passed 73-25 ( with two Senators not voting);
- The final vote was for final passage of the package. This
vote required 51 votes to pass, and passed 65-33
(with two Senators not voting).
Add in the fact that Senate Majority Leader McConnell rushed to the floor to lock in a time agreement when not many Senators had time to object, and you have a broken legislative process. Not allowing 60 votes on cloture to the bill was the only way to stop it from passing or changing the process under which the bill was considered.
These take it or leave it-style Omnibus or government spending bills became the norm under former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Unfortunately, that tradition has continued under Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The second vote was a vote on a motion to table the package. This vote had been promised to members who wanted to manufacture a cover vote in order to pretend they opposed the Omnibus. Members of that group of flip-floppers who voted to advance the bill but then vote to kill it included Sens. Richard Burr (R-NC), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Dean Heller (R-NV), James Lankford (R-OK) and RobPortman (R-OH). Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) was the only Senator who voted against cloture but also against the motion to table.
Even though the vote breakdown was similar on cloture and the motion to table, the six Republicans who flipped are being inconsistent. Why advance a bill they oppose? Duplicitous, no? Many will claim they opposed the Omnibus, despite moving the bill over a key procedural hurdle.
It is logical to assume that any Senator who voted to proceed to the bill wanted it to pass. This is an important point to remember if your Senator comes home to discuss his “opposition” to the Omnibus.
Therefore, Conservative Review included the cloture vote on the Omnibus in its Liberty Score because it was the most telling vote on the bill. That vote was arguably the best opportunity for the massive Omnibus to be stopped because only 41 votes were needed on cloture as opposed to 51 on final passage.
Why Some Senators Are Falsely Claiming They Opposed the Omnibus
Just before Congress recessed for the remainder of 2015, it took
up a massive $1.1 trillion omnibus. That massive spending package was
negotiated behind closed doors and revealed to the nation in the wee hours of
the morning on December 16th. The bill that a select few negotiators birthed,
was over 2,000 pages long and presented to their colleagues as a take it or
leave it option with no opportunity for amendments or input.
Given both the absurd price tag of the bill and a host of other issues with the bill, it is no surprise that members of Congress who had a hand in moving this legislation closer to the finish line would like to disown the finished product. Recently, CR was contacted by several Senators claiming they opposed the Omnibus and that by extension, our Liberty Score was inaccurate. These Senators claim because they checked the “no” box on the final passage vote that they have clean hands. Unfortunately for their constituents, it isn’t that simple.
One of the unique things about the Senate and the rules that provide for consideration of legislation is the ability for the minority to slow debate. When it comes to legislation such as these trillion dollar bills, those rules allow the minority to keep the bill in the sunlight just a bit longer. Any senator has the ability to object to ending debate on a bill. Given the absurd process that surrounded the conception of the Omnibus, the limited time frame under which it was considered, and the inability to offer amendments, it is reasonable that many senators would object to ending debate.
However, this objection can be overruled under Rule 22 in the Senate: the cloture rule. Cloture requires three fifths of all voting and present Senators to affirmatively shut off debate. In other words, they are forcing their colleagues to be quiet and move a bill one step closer to final passage.
The main difference between the procedural vote known as “cloture” and final passage is the number of votes required to advance a bill. Final passage is a simple majority, typically 51, while cloture requires three fifths, typically 60.
It is logical to assume that any senator that opposes or claims to oppose this massive omnibus would want to take every opportunity to weigh in on both the substance of the bill and the process by which it was conceived and considered. For any Senator to claim they oppose this bill yet vote to advance it would be illogical and inconsistent.
This latest Omnibus is a textbook example of what some of us at CR refer to as “live fire exercise” versus “cover votes.”
On the omnibus, there were four votes taken (cloture, motion to table, motion to wave a budget point of order, and final passage).As explained above, not all votes are equal.
It is important to understand why a member would have voted differently on cloture on the motion to proceed to the Omnibus versus the vote on a motion to table or final passage of the package. The short answer is that all the other votes were throw-away cover votes. The only vote that was meaningful was the vote on cloture to start debate.
Here is how it played out on December 18th in the Senate:
Add in the fact that Senate Majority Leader McConnell rushed to the floor to lock in a time agreement when not many Senators had time to object, and you have a broken legislative process. Not allowing 60 votes on cloture to the bill was the only way to stop it from passing or changing the process under which the bill was considered.
These take it or leave it-style Omnibus or government spending bills became the norm under former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Unfortunately, that tradition has continued under Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The second vote was a vote on a motion to table the package. This vote had been promised to members who wanted to manufacture a cover vote in order to pretend they opposed the Omnibus. Members of that group of flip-floppers who voted to advance the bill but then vote to kill it included Sens. Richard Burr (R-NC), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Dean Heller (R-NV), James Lankford (R-OK) and RobPortman (R-OH). Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) was the only Senator who voted against cloture but also against the motion to table.
Even though the vote breakdown was similar on cloture and the motion to table, the six Republicans who flipped are being inconsistent. Why advance a bill they oppose? Duplicitous, no? Many will claim they opposed the Omnibus, despite moving the bill over a key procedural hurdle.
It is logical to assume that any Senator who voted to proceed to the bill wanted it to pass. This is an important point to remember if your Senator comes home to discuss his “opposition” to the Omnibus.
Therefore, Conservative Review included the cloture vote on the Omnibus in its Liberty Score because it was the most telling vote on the bill. That vote was arguably the best opportunity for the massive Omnibus to be stopped because only 41 votes were needed on cloture as opposed to 51 on final passage.
Given both the absurd price tag of the bill and a host of other issues with the bill, it is no surprise that members of Congress who had a hand in moving this legislation closer to the finish line would like to disown the finished product. Recently, CR was contacted by several Senators claiming they opposed the Omnibus and that by extension, our Liberty Score was inaccurate. These Senators claim because they checked the “no” box on the final passage vote that they have clean hands. Unfortunately for their constituents, it isn’t that simple.
One of the unique things about the Senate and the rules that provide for consideration of legislation is the ability for the minority to slow debate. When it comes to legislation such as these trillion dollar bills, those rules allow the minority to keep the bill in the sunlight just a bit longer. Any senator has the ability to object to ending debate on a bill. Given the absurd process that surrounded the conception of the Omnibus, the limited time frame under which it was considered, and the inability to offer amendments, it is reasonable that many senators would object to ending debate.
However, this objection can be overruled under Rule 22 in the Senate: the cloture rule. Cloture requires three fifths of all voting and present Senators to affirmatively shut off debate. In other words, they are forcing their colleagues to be quiet and move a bill one step closer to final passage.
The main difference between the procedural vote known as “cloture” and final passage is the number of votes required to advance a bill. Final passage is a simple majority, typically 51, while cloture requires three fifths, typically 60.
It is logical to assume that any senator that opposes or claims to oppose this massive omnibus would want to take every opportunity to weigh in on both the substance of the bill and the process by which it was conceived and considered. For any Senator to claim they oppose this bill yet vote to advance it would be illogical and inconsistent.
This latest Omnibus is a textbook example of what some of us at CR refer to as “live fire exercise” versus “cover votes.”
On the omnibus, there were four votes taken (cloture, motion to table, motion to wave a budget point of order, and final passage).As explained above, not all votes are equal.
It is important to understand why a member would have voted differently on cloture on the motion to proceed to the Omnibus versus the vote on a motion to table or final passage of the package. The short answer is that all the other votes were throw-away cover votes. The only vote that was meaningful was the vote on cloture to start debate.
Here is how it played out on December 18th in the Senate:
- The first vote was to end debate on a “Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendments to the Senate Amendments to H.R. 2029.This vote passed 72-26 (with Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) missing the votes);
- The second vote was a motion to table (to kill) the Omnibus, requiring 51 votes. That vote failed 31-67 (with two Senators not voting);
- The third vote was on a budget point of order that was waived. This vote required 60 votes to waive, and passed 73-25 ( with two Senators not voting);
- The final vote was for final passage of the package. This vote required 51 votes to pass, and passed 65-33 (with two Senators not voting).
Add in the fact that Senate Majority Leader McConnell rushed to the floor to lock in a time agreement when not many Senators had time to object, and you have a broken legislative process. Not allowing 60 votes on cloture to the bill was the only way to stop it from passing or changing the process under which the bill was considered.
These take it or leave it-style Omnibus or government spending bills became the norm under former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Unfortunately, that tradition has continued under Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The second vote was a vote on a motion to table the package. This vote had been promised to members who wanted to manufacture a cover vote in order to pretend they opposed the Omnibus. Members of that group of flip-floppers who voted to advance the bill but then vote to kill it included Sens. Richard Burr (R-NC), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Dean Heller (R-NV), James Lankford (R-OK) and RobPortman (R-OH). Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) was the only Senator who voted against cloture but also against the motion to table.
Even though the vote breakdown was similar on cloture and the motion to table, the six Republicans who flipped are being inconsistent. Why advance a bill they oppose? Duplicitous, no? Many will claim they opposed the Omnibus, despite moving the bill over a key procedural hurdle.
It is logical to assume that any Senator who voted to proceed to the bill wanted it to pass. This is an important point to remember if your Senator comes home to discuss his “opposition” to the Omnibus.
Therefore, Conservative Review included the cloture vote on the Omnibus in its Liberty Score because it was the most telling vote on the bill. That vote was arguably the best opportunity for the massive Omnibus to be stopped because only 41 votes were needed on cloture as opposed to 51 on final passage.
No comments:
Post a Comment