Outside of dealing with Republican walkouts and recesses that resulted in a new majority leader (Senator Chuck Schumer), the Finance Committee was able to get through only one bill last night.
The Committee questioned one witness before a recess was called so the Committee could observe the Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans walk out (again). About one hour behind schedule, the Committee resumed to begin mark-up and discussion on the SHOP Act of 2009.
The Republican minority dominated the session. Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), who was not present at the hearing or a member of the Finance Committee, introduced an amendment to the SHOP Act. Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), who was serving as Senator Crapo's proxy, read a one page statement explaining why the Act should include a clause honoring the music group called "Rage Against the Machine." After ten minutes, the amendment was rejected.
Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a member of the Finance Committee, then introduced several technical concerns, including the definitions of "insurance coverage" and "insurance coverage." After searching for several minutes, the Democrats were able to find them, but not until after a large amount of time was wasted.
Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT) did assert his authority at one point. When Senator John Ensign (R-NV) raised question as to whether Senator Schumer, in his haste to assume the Majority leader position, declared Senator Baucus his proxy, the Chair ended all discussion: "I am the chair, I am the judge, I am the proxy. End of discussion."
When Senator McConnell persisted in a discussion if one of the clauses should read "or" instead of "and," I could not help but believe that the Republicans were stalling. I was especially suspicious when the SHOP Act was voted in, and nothing was mentioned of the second bill that was up for consideration. When I asked the Chair when they planned on getting to it, he waved me off, saying "maybe we'll get to it tomorrow."
Today I caught up with Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), the sponsor of the bill entitled The Medicare Modernization and Improvement Act of 2009. He confirmed that the leadership had informed him the bill will not be considered. When asked if he felt this was some sort of minority party ploy to keep his bill out, he had this to say:
I wouldn't go so far to call it a ploy but it is clear that the Republican members of our caucus are much more interested in raising peripheral issues--such as discussing the definition of "health care issuer" for 25 minutes--than expanding health care access and cutting health care costs. I hope that next session that my colleagues from across the aisle will place more importance on ensuring that America's seniors continue to have access to health care than raising amendments commending the rock-group Rage Against the Machine.
Will the spring chicken Majority Leader be able to hold off the Republicans tonight? We will be providing all the coverage starting at 5 pm. Check out http://twitter.com/ClaremontBeat for real time updates!
Letter to the Editor:
ReplyDeleteTo whom it may concern,
I'd like to take the opportunity to make a quick clarification on the article posted regarding the finance committee's proceedings last night.
The idea that the committee was "dominated" by the minority is flatly wrong. As we discussed prior to the session, the top priority for the night and the only bill with a fixed time on the schedule was the SHOP act, which we passed. Exceptional circumstances unrelated to minority committee members consumed nearly two hours of our time and prevented us from conducting work on other bills as we had hoped. There's no question that the Republicans engaged in delaying tactics, but I think both myself and ranking member Grassley would agree that your specific mention of the "and/or" dispute is misinformed. This amendment was a legitimate point regarding a significant element of the bill and one which would have dramatically changed its impact.
Your discussion of the the voting row is also inconsistent with the time line of the night: although Senator Schumer would later leave to consider the issue of the Majority Leadership, this was not until the general recess which delayed our committee proceedings more broadly, he was out of the room on other matters at the time.
I appreciate your efforts to cover our committee but hope you would take somewhat more careful note of the proceedings or make an effort to contact the leadership involved before publishing such a heavy-handed article.
Thanks,
Demoratic Senator
Response:
Dear Senator,
We at the Claremont Beat extend an effort every day to communicate the truth to our readers. We take our job as the lone news source reporting on this session of Congress very seriously. When one of our reporters makes an error, we seek to make reparations immediately. That said, we refuse to censor our coverage to please any one person or entity.
We would like to address your comments, one point at a time.
"The idea that the committee was "dominated" by the minority is flatly wrong. As we discussed prior to the session, the top priority for the night and the only bill with a fixed time on the schedule was the SHOP act, which we passed. Exceptional circumstances unrelated to minority committee members consumed nearly two hours of our time and prevented us from conducting work on other bills as we had hoped."
First, let us clarify that the article was not referring to just the Republican Minority members of the Finance Committee, but the Republican Minority in Congress. No where does it specifically refer to these "minority committee members" as dominating the Congress. One cannot argue that a Republican walk-out is unrelated to Republican committee members, given Senator McConnell's status as one of your committee members AND the minority leader. Additionally, there is no disputing that the Republican agenda, more specifically the walkout, even if it is was not from your own committee, dominated much of the night.
"There's no question that the Republicans engaged in delaying tactics, but I think both myself and ranking member Grassley would agree that your specific mention of the "and/or" dispute is misinformed. This amendment was a legitimate point regarding a significant element of the bill and one which would have dramatically changed its impact."
The only information used in the article came from members of your own party. Obviously Senator Grassley would agree that it was a "legitimate point" given his party was making it. If Senator Conrad was not referring to the "and/or" debate in his frustration, we will gladly edit the article.
"Your discussion of the the voting row is also inconsistent with the time line of the night: although Senator Schumer would later leave to consider the issue of the Majority Leadership, this was not until the general recess which delayed our committee proceedings more broadly, he was out of the room on other matters at the time."
This argument was after the recess, at approximately 9 pm. Senator Schumer gained his Majority Leadership at approximately 8 pm. Instead of "in his haste to assume the Majority leader position", we could change it to "in his haste to assume his Majority leader responsibilities." Please let us know if that would make you feel better.
Thank you,
The Claremont Beat