After nearly a year in the sausage factory, H.R. 3221 has cleared both houses and is headed for the White House.

But the bill, now known as a housing bill under the title of the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008   American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, didn't start that way:

By the way, the procedural history of H.R. 3221 is fascinating. If you have no life, that is. Did you know that the bill started off as an energy bill, passed the House in August 2007, but never passed in the Senate? It later had most of its provisions shoehorned into H.R. 6 (the "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007") which was passed in December of last year. That left the mostly hollowed-out shell of H.R. 3221 available for use as a housing bill.

Why do that? Because the original H.R. 3221 contained things like renewable energy tax credits, which means it was technically a tax bill, which the Constitution says must originate in the House. But the Senate had a package of housing provisions, among which were tax measures, but which couldn't be brought forth as an original bill in that chamber. With a bill in their hands that had been originated in and passed by the House that was a tax bill, they could add their provisions as amendments, removing all the energy-related stuff that had passed in H.R. 6, anyway.

And that's at least part of the story of how the " New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act" became the "Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007," which became the "Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008" when the Senate amended it, and then became the "American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008" when the House amended the Senate's amendments.

I sh*t you not. At least I don't think so.

It's been a remarkable saga, one including seven cloture votes, which may be a record for a single piece of legislation. But despite the weeks on end spent shepherding this thing through Congress, few people are entirely clear even on what exactly is in this bill. This thing was a textbook trip through the sausage factory, and we're going to have to take a look back at it, post-game, to figure out exactly how it was cobbled together and why. Reactions to its passage have been everything from sighs of relief at the "rescue" of distressed homeowners (and not a few mortgage industry powerhouses, in all likelihood), to distress at the sighs of relief from shareholders and executives at those mortgage industry powerhouses, who -- had the "free market" had its way -- might actually have had to weather a beating serious enough to sink them forever.

This bill had it all, in terms of procedural maneuvering, interplay between the various turning gears of the government and the market, public and private interests, and even basic questions of competing theories of governance.

But the game's over, and all indications are that the Bush White House has abandoned its veto threats and the bill will be signed -- though you never know with these guys, they could come up with something new and veto it just to make the Congress spend its last week in session dealing with that instead of anything else. In the coming days and weeks, we'll take a look back at the game film, and see just what went into this particular piece of sausage. And if we're lucky, we can use it as a teaching case for preparing a corps of legislative watchers for greater involvement and effectiveness in steering the work of the next Congress and the next administration.

This diary is a reaction to a story on the Huffington Post titled Dems will gain seats this fall - - but how many.  It was teased on the front of the Politics Page as

Dems close in on Holy Grail: 60-Vote Majority

Of course we would all love it if the Democrats got up to 60 seats, but headlines like this are misleading.

We should not be looking to 60 seats as a magic number that will allow passage of progressive measures without fillibuster.  The switch from minority to majority party was huge, but 60 is just a number.

In particular, if the Democrats are so fortunate as to gain exactly 9 seats, I still want Joe Lieberman tossed out of the caucus so fast he bounces.  Let's see exactly how much seniority the Republicans are willing to grant him.

Right in the middle of the Medicare cloture vote.

They broke into a standing ovation for him.

I can't wait to hear the clerk say "Mr. Kennedy ... AYE".

(Sorry about doing this as a BREAKING, but it really, truly is.  The enthusiastic response from everyone in the Senate chamber was truly amazing.)

UPDATE UPDATE -- video of the ovation (I wish they'd also captured the interrupted roll call leading into it):

The Lieberman-Warner climate change bill stalled in the Senate today, after a failed cloture vote tallying just 48 votes in favor of proceeding to debate.

Actually, by the time the bill went down, it had become known as the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill. That's a nifty little move that comes as a perk of chairmanship of the committee that's got jurisdiction over a bill you want in on, but didn't originally introduce yourself. When it gets referred to your committee for hearings, you get to tack on all your own ideas and rename the bill, with your name first.

From the beginning, reviews of the bill itself have been mixed at best, with most environmentalist thought coming to rest on the "Fix of Ditch" approach -- acknowledging that there was a nice first try in there somewhere, but that the end product was just too larded up with giveaways and simultaneously too weak in its requirements to fight for and leave in place as a baseline, lest everyone take their eye off the ball and consider the business done once some bill, any bill, had passed.

Consequently, support for the bill was tepid in the Senate. And if you didn't know that because like me you didn't follow the bill closely, 48 votes for cloture should tip you off. Not a lot of serious cloture fights end 12 votes shy of the mark.

Over in the House, the climate change news is the introduction of a bill by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), chair of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The Committee, by the way, is a new creation announced by the Speaker in March of last year, and 15 months later, this is their product.

By most early accounts, it's a decent bill and at least a good step in the right direction. But will we see it enacted by the 110th Congress? That's not terribly likely given that House Democrats aren't yet united on their approach to the issue, and the fact that Congress will be out of session for much of the summer, taking an Independence Day recess and most of August off. (Though it's true, being "off" for Members of Congress means something very different than it does for you and me.) With the FISA and Iraq supplemental fights still looming, plus any other unfinished business that needs taking care of (even if they abandon all pretense at finishing the regular appropriations bills), there's just not going to be a lot of time available for major global warming initiatives to make it through one house, let alone two.

That fact's not lost on House Minority Leader John Boehner (on whom so much else so often is), who took the opportunity to needle Democrats for, well, not acting on something he really doesn't want them to act on, anyway.

For Republican global warming deniers and enablers, the best bet for surviving the environmental issue in the 2008 elections is hunkering down with their fellow deniers and enablers and convincing themselves that the fact nothing could be done (so long as we're saddled with an insane president) is actually evidence that nothing should be done.

For Democrats, it's perhaps still too early to admit that the most climate change action we'll see is setting the issue up (and setting up Republicans as obstructionists) for the '08 elections. But the time's drawing near.

I would like to take time out of my day to thank all the capitulating/ DLC/ Bush Blue dogs who went against over 70-80 % of democratic voters that did not telecommunitcation immunity and voted against cloture and voted for immunity.

More below the fold

There's a front page diary which states that:

The procedure for tomorrow is that votes on the outstanding amendments will begin at 10:00. After these votes happen, they'll have the cloture vote. When Leahy and Dodd say they will filibuster, it means that they will vote against the cloture vote on the bill to continue debate. If they are successful in preventing 60 votes for cloture, the debate can continue for as long as 30 hours. If they fail to prevent cloture, Dodd has four hours reserved for him and his colleagues like Leahy to convince enough fellow Dems to vote against final passage.

If this is an accurate statement, then we are being lied to, the Senate is violating its own rules and perpetrating a sham.

Follow below the fold for more.

What we've been waiting for. They're actually debating the FISA cloture vote...

   

DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS DIARY.  RECOMMEND THE Mothership

Wanna watch the fireworks live?  C-Span 2

It's never too late to call. smintheus posted Dodd's speech and phone numbers earlier.

What we've been waiting for. They're actually debating the FISA cloture vote...

DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS DIARY.  RECOMMEND THE Mothership

Wanna watch the fireworks live?  C-Span 2

It's never too late to call. smintheus posted Dodd's speech and phone numbers earlier.

GO TO PART III

It's starting to look like the tide is turning in our favor on this afternoon's cloture vote for the amnesty-laden FISA bill. Keep the pressure up, folks, we might win this one!

According to the Clinton and Obama campaigns, both senators will be present to vote against cloture. Sen. Rockefeller has already said he'll vote against cloture on his own bill. This diary declares that a staffer for Dick Durbin says he'll support Dodd's filibuster, which ought to mean he'll vote against cloture. Bill Nelson (FL) supports Dodd's amendment and may be coming around to voting against cloture. We've also learned that Salazar's staff is hoping he'll vote against cloture.

It's time to assemble as much information as possible about what you've learned from your calls to Senatorial offices about where each of the Democrats stand in regard to cloture. Please use the comments here for that purpose.

And keep up the calls and emails. Below is a list of the main Democrats we need to persuade. Many of these phone numbers are either being shut down (like Mikulski's), or jammed with calls. So if you can't get through in DC, and you've tried several times already, take a different route to making your voice heard - try calling one of the Senator's offices back home. And if you do, report here what numbers you've gotten through on and how willing the home-state staffers are to take down information.

And remember too that you need to be polite but firm. Don't let staffers brush your concerns off. If they are dismissive, add a note in the comments here. The Senate offices are the people's offices as well. You have a right to make your opinion known, and I doubt many senators will want to see their own offices being singled out for treating constituents badly.

• Bayh (202) 224-5623
• Carper (202) 224-2441
• Inouye (202) 224-3934
• Johnson (202) 224-5842
• Landrieu (202)224-5824
• McCaskill (202) 224-6154
• Mikulski (202) 224-4654
• Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274
• Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551
• Pryor (202) 224-2353
• Salazar (202) 224-5852

In addition, here is a general clearinghouse for calling or e-mailing your own Senators. You can also use the tools created by CREDO and EFF if you prefer.

UPDATE 1: It looks as if Arlen Specter is going to vote against cloture. If John McCain is absent while campaigning in Florida, it may not be possible for the Republicans to gain the 60 votes they need. That remains unclear, however, so keep the phones ringing. Now is the time to press the advantage home. If the Republican side begins to slip visibly, it will be a lot easier to move the quavering "moderates" into the right column. And the more who line up against cloture, the stronger that opposition to telecom amnesty will appear to be. Appearances matter when you're trying to round up votes.

UPDATE 2: Sen. Mikulski reportedly will vote against cloture as well. The momentum on our side is building.

I see FISA mentioned on in the front page stories, but not in the current diaries searching main page on the acronym, so here is a reminder to any of you who would like to put aside the candidate hissy fits for a moment and focus on whether you care about preserving your most fundamental rights to the protections supposedly guaranteed you under the Bill of Rights.

There will be a vote at 4:30 today (unless this has changed in the past few hours) in the Senate. The Republicans are playing their usual selfish anti-American games, trying to ram through a vote on the bill they (and 10 sorry excuses of Democrats) support that will guarantee immunity for the telecoms (and of course by extension Bush administration), and in fact worsen the situation by allowing even more intrusive spying on Americans with less and less heed to due process, warrants, and the courts.

Below the fold is my FAX to Sen. Bayh at 7:15 this morning. I followed it up with a trimmed and edited version to Sen. Lugar. It was no less blunt.

I'm sorry mcjoan.  I respect you a great deal, and I understand the value of seeing the glass as half full, but I'm with edgery on this. In fact I'm throroughly pissed off.

So what if Clinton and Obama are going to vote no on cloture?  Ferpetesake even Harry Reid is going to vote no on cloture.  You want me to praise them just for showing up a couple of hours early on SOTU day?  (we've all figured out the 4:30 vs noon thing by now, right?)

Suppose they bravely vote no but cloture passes anyway?  Will they pay a price?  No. We're the ones who will pay the price.  Clinton and Obama hadn't even committed to participating until today, even though we all knew they'd be in town.  Why the hell should I be happy with the candidates when it's still up to me to lean on the following Senators?  

* Bayh (202) 224-5623 * Carper (202) 224-2441 * Inouye (202) 224-3934 * Johnson (202) 224-5842 * Landrieu (202)224-5824 * McCaskill (202) 224-6154 * Mikulski (202) 224-4654 * Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274 * Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551 * Pryor (202) 224-2353 * Salazar (202) 224-5852

Do you like arithmetic? Doing arithmetic sometimes improves my day, sometimes it doesn't. Today was a "doesn't" day.

NPR's repeated statements that the 2007 Senate set a record for filibusters irritated me so much that I decided to try to calm my mind by looking at some numbers. What I found surprised me. Many of you know what I discovered, but I hope this diary will interest a few readers.

Two-thirds of the Senate must agree to override a veto.

Two-thirds of the Senate must agree to expel a member.

Conviction on an impeachment charge requires a two-thirds vote.

Two-thirds of Senators present and voting must agree to debate a proposed change of a Senate rule.

34 Senators can block a veto override, prevent the expulsion of a member, or prevent impeachment conviction.

(Following numbers for total U.S. population include Washington, D.C., and exclude other non-state affiliates such as Puerto Rico.)

Guess what? 34 Senators represent 7% of U.S. residents! Fewer than 34 Senators can block debate on a rule change.

Reading Daily Kos is like reading the newspaper a month in advance.

Reading Daily Kos is like reading the newspaper a week in advance.

Reading Daily Kos is like reading the damned newspaper... used to be.

If you were following the FISA and telecom amnesty debate in the traditional media (even their blog versions) yesterday, you were hopelessly lost. You would have read that Dodd's filibuster had "fizzled," and that the telecoms had won a victory. And you apparentlywould have been reading this well into the evening, since it wasn't until well after the bill had finally been pulled that the media got a real handle on what had happened, even if they never really understood how it had happened, much less why. But if you stuck with us, you probably had a pretty good handle on things, whether you're a visual learner, or prefer the narrative form.

The reasons are myriad, and we've discussed some of them before. First, there's the background media narrative to overcome. The conventional wisdom was that this deal was going through, and that was that. So the stories were in some sense already written. A change of direction always catches the media off guard. But beyond that, the plain fact is that the traditional media just isn't that well suited to covering a story like this.

Second, this situation was fluid, and traditional media that have strict deadlines for going to press just can't keep up. That's why so many media organizations have made the move to the Internet, or have developed news blogs. But that overcomes just one of the many hurdles.

Third, in addition to being fluid, it was complex and arcane. It took a long time to explain exactly what was going on, or what might happen. In fact, that explanation turned my planned 15 minute interview on The Young Turks radio program into a 45 minute appearance, explaining as thoroughly as I could what the situation was and various possibilities of how it might shake out, not to mention what that might mean and why it happening this way in the first place. No traditional media organization can spend that kind of time on things. Even the radio appearance was perhaps only possible because The Young Turks show had committed to continuing to tape their show as long as Dodd kept up his fight, so we had lots of time to kill and the longer we spent explaining it, the better. As a result, the traditional media coverage of yesterday's events by and large simply got the procedure wrong, mistaking the cloture vote on the motion to proceed for a cloture vote on Dodd's filibuster of the bill itself (which we never even got to), and forgetting entirely about the 30 hours of post-cloture debate, which is what we were actually seeing yesterday.

And fourth (I was going to say "finally," but nothing is final until the comments come in), there's the matter of the time and effort that we can put into a story like this -- both individually as bloggers, and collectively as a blogosphere -- that the traditional media can't. Or won't. I don't have to remind anyone here of what that boils down to...

but I will, because it's so delicious:

I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right...

Well you know what? Neither do I. But I did it anyway, because I care what the hell happens in this country, and I want to know what I'm talking about.

I worked on Capitol Hill for a few years, so I happen to know something about procedure in general. But I never worked on the Senate side. Do you want to know how I came to understand Senate procedure? I looked it up and read about it. What a concept.

So thanks for playing along with us. Hope you enjoyed the ride. We'll be back here on this bill again in January, and we can put what we learned to good use. Until then, don't forget to put your "Stupid Internet Hayseed" costumes (or your "Vinny in the Bronx" bathrobe) back on. You don't want to spook the natives.

This started out as a comment to mcjoan's excellent front-page diary this afternoon, which got to be way to long.  Plus, in order to get it clear in my own head, I put together a visual flowchart, which I've included immediately below the fold.

In short, it appears that things are not as bleak as they might seem for the good guys at this point.  If Dodd is true to his word and is really committed to stopping telco-immunity, he still holds an very strong hand and even if the very worst case has the ability to drag this thing out all week long until right before everybody hightails it out of town until January.

For some additional background, see this CRS (Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan Congressional office that analyzes legal issues for Congress) report on "Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate".

I, like everyone else, am extremely frustrated by the inability of the Democratic majority to change the direction of this country.  And I am particularly frustrated at Senate Democrats for not illustrating clearly to the public the major reason for this impotence – the Republican minority in the Senate and their constant objecting (filibustering) of everything and anything.

The old cliché that "pictures are worth a 1,000 words" is quite true for the following chart.  It depicts the number of annual cloture votes that have been held each year from 1971-2007.  With one week left before the Senate breaks for Christmas, the Republicans will likely add to the mind-boggling 77 filibusters they have clocked up so far this year - almost double the 42 filibusters that took place last year.  You remember that year, when Republicans threatened to go "nuclear" because the Democratics weren't allowing an up or down vote and blocking the will of the Majority?  Well jump beyond the fold and take a look at what pikers the Democrats are when it comes to throwing sand in the gears of the Senate.  

You know what I think? I am tired about seeing the Democrats say that they can't get over 60 votes to break a filibuster. So you know what I think they should do? Let them. Let the Republicans get up, one after another, after another, after another, and complain, whine, moan, and side with this administration and its failed war policy over and over and over again.

Then, let them start reading cookbooks, the bible, the consitiution (it'll be the first time for some of them, I suppose), or whatever they want. The point being, let them get up and bring the US Senate to a crashing halt. Make them run those images on C-Span for 3 or 4 weeks, getting no legislation passed, and getting nothing done. They couldn't leave the chamber if the presiding officer decided to compel attendance.

If the Republicans are going to keep throwing up "procedureal road blocks," then I think the Democrats should make it as long a road as possible. It should be a road with electoral boulders too! This war has support raiting of something like 20-30%. So I say, stop the government, bring it to a halt, and see how fast it drops.

Is is political theater? Sure, but if the Republicans are going to use "Robert's Rules of Order" to help keep getting our soldiers killed, then I don't see why we can't rough up "Robert" a little.

The Huffington Post has an interesting article this morning about how the GOP is "filibustering" more than ever.

Using obstructionism to defeat or delay an opponent's agenda is nothing new in Washington. Over the past five years, there have been more than 260 threats of a legislative filibuster in the Senate. But the numbers suggest that with Democrats now in power, such tactics are dramatically on the rise. Sixty-four times this year legislation has come before the Senate requiring 60 votes or more to pass - almost twice as many as all of last year, when the balance of power was switched, and nearly three times as much as 2005.

Remember how the Republicans threatened to eliminate the filibuster a few years back?  The Democrats crapped themselves over that, and promised never to do it again.   Of course now that the Republicans are using it, the Democrats are letting them do it all they want.  

What in the name of heaven is wrong with this place?  Is everybody going crazy?  I've never seen so much ill considered spleen vented in one place before in my life.  If I squint, I can't tell whether this place is Daily Kos or Little Orange Footballs.

Kerry responsible for tazering a heckler?  Forty-seven diaries about defending some dumb-ass wording in a Move On ad?  Condemning the Senate leadership to eternal damnation because we don't agree with their choice of procedural rules?

Grow up.  There's a war going on!