The President's failure to make these nominations and secure their confirmation in a timely manner will, in retrospect, prove to have been his biggest mistake.
This is certainly possible. The President's failure to change the culture at the Fed by filling these vacancies earlier may well prove to be his biggest mistake. The dire condition of the economy is by far the top political problem facing the Obama administration.
But really, going back further, not allowing Republicans to destroy the filibuster back in 2005 is the biggest mistake made by not only President Obama, but by the Democratic trifecta as a whole (and, I admit, my biggest mistake too). This would have resulted in a wide swatch of changes, including a larger stimulus, the Employee Free Choice Act, a better health bill (in all likelihood, one with a public option, and completed in December), an actual climate / energy bill, a second stimulus, and more. If Democrats had tacked on other changes to Senate rules that sped up the process, such as doing away with unanimous consent, ending debating time after cloture is achieved on nominations, eliminating the two days between filing for cloture and voting on cloture, and restricting quorum calls, then virtually every judicial and administration vacancy would already be filled, as well.
Playing the "what if" game can be painful, because there is no way to go back in time and change what happened. However, it is also useful in that it gives us a roadmap on how to do better in the future. In this case, that means focusing our efforts on changing Senate rules for the next Congress. Right now, it is hard to imagine any more important effort in order to achieve more effective governance.
With the Wall Street reform bill finally cleared through Congress, activists and intellectuals are pushing hard to make sure that this bill isn't the last word Congress utters about Big Finance. We need deeper and more robust reforms, but it's also critical to ensure that the new bill is implemented as effectively as possible. Part of that means appointing officials with a proven record as robust reformers-people like Elizabeth Warren.
The conference report on the Wall Street reform bill, which had already passed the House, just achieved cloture in the Senate, 60-38. Three Republicans, Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins voted in favor. Among Democrats, Russ Feingold voted against. There is currently a vacancy in the Senate, and one Republican Senators did not vote. It will now receive an up or down vote at some point between now and Saturday. It will then be signed into law be President Obama.
While this particular bill is finished, and while it's a step in the right direction, the fight against Wall Street is far from over.
As I disclosed repeatedly, I worked on this bill, in a paid capacity, for four months (my work ended on July 1st). With that work over, and the process on this bill finally complete, I am going to go off on a bit of a rant, in bullet point form:
Why the frak didn't we take up this bill last spring? This bill would have been a lot stronger if we brought it up last spring, after the stimulus and budget fights, and before the health care fight. In the worst depths of the recession, Democrats could have spent 8-10 weeks debating and amending the bill on the floor of the Senate, instead of the four weeks they spent doing so one year later. The bill kept getting stronger on the floor of the Senate, and would have kept getting even stronger the more time spent debating and amending it in public. We should have struck while the iron was hot.
Why the frak isn't there an organized community around this issue in progressive circles? In the progressive ecosystem, we have longstanding green groups, civil rights groups, unions, immigrant groups, women's groups, and many more well-defined constituencies. However, we simply do not have an organized constituency that fights large financial institutions on behalf of consumers. The lack of this organized, institutional constituency is almost certainly why the bill was not taken up sooner--it meant there was no one pushing Congressional Dems or the Obama administration to take it up sooner. If these regulations are ever going to get stronger in future fights, we need an organized constituency on this issue.
Yeah, the bill probably will not prevent a financial financial meltdown. No shit, Sherlock. However, holding that up as the only test as to whether the bill is worth passing is frakking absurd. The bill does a lot of good in terms of protecting consumers and the broader economy in other ways, which I presented in detail here and here. Should all new consumer protections be defeated because they will not prevent another financial meltdown? And what other laws, which do good in ways other than preventing financial metldowns, should be repealed? The Clean Water Act won't prevent another financial meltdown, but it is still a good idea that we regulate our water supply. Medicaid won't prevent a financial crisis, but it's still good that low-income Americans have access to public health insurance. The Civil rights Act won't prevent another financial metldown--should we have voted against that, too? Even if it probably won't prevent another financial meltdown, the bill still does some good things.
What's that you say, that passing the bill will give people a false sense of security that the problems plaguing our financial system have been repaired, and thus we won't try to pass a new wave of reforms in the future? What utterly patronizing bullshit. As someone who worked on the campaign for four months, I can tell you that there isn't a single advocate working on this campaign who thinks this bill is a total victory and we never have to bring it up again. Every single person working on it knows we have a long, long way to go. The country thinks that, too. So do the majority of members of Congress. How frakking special and superior to you think you are that only you realize we have not completely fixed our financial system, while everyone else has been lulled into a contented sleep with their fellow sheeple? Patronizing horseshit.
This bill protects the status quo, huh? Well you know what protects the status quo even more? The frakking status quo without this bill. That's just a frakking tautology. Defeating the bill is the status quo. It's the exact same frakking thing.
Finally, while both Democrats in Congress and advocates working on the bill share blame for it not being stronger, everyone who wanted a stronger bill shares some blame for it not being stronger. This is the bill that passed, despite everyone's best efforts, intentions, and rants. Don't tell me that you wanted a stronger bill, and the failure to achieve a stronger bill doesn't at least partially rest with you. I must have missed the part where you overran Wall Street defenses, while the rest of us were stuck with this bill.
There, I needed to get that all off my chest.
Despite this rant, I am still grateful to everyone who agitated on this bill. I am even more grateful to the agitators who actually engaged and organized around the fight, rather than sitting on the sidelines. While I am upset that the strengths of the bill are not getting attention, the necessary further fights against Wall Street will never happen unless the ways in which the fight needs to be continued are articulated. It's just that I don't think it is fair, or productive, to dump on the people who actually engaged and organized in this fight.
Finally, someone needs to explain to me how viciously attacking the people who are fighting Wall Street will actually achieve stronger Wall Street reform in the future. Once everyone fighting for stronger Wall Street regulations is discredited, then we will achieve stronger Wall Street regulations! Yey!
It now appears that Democrats have 60 votes for cloture on the Wall Street reform bill, even without Robert Byrd's replacement. As such, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will file for cloture on the bill later today.
Reid made the announcement that he will file for cloture on the Senate floor this morning. From DemWarRoom on Twitter
"I also expect to consider the Wall St reform conference report some time later today," -- @SenatorReid
By "consider" Reid likely means "filing for cloture," thus setting up a Thursday vote. This Thursday timeline was floated by Senate sources yesterday, as well.
If Reid is filing for cloture, that means he has the support of Senator Ben Nelson. Yesterday, Nelson said he was undecided on the bill, thus putting the bill one vote shy of passage. However, I have heard that Nelson is expected to announce his support today, a rumor which is confirmed by Reid's announcement.
So, it looks like Wall Street Reform will finish up this week. Huzzah. I should be thrilled, but mostly I am just tired. Every victory is both watered down and grueling.
It is now very unlikely that West Virginia Governor Jim Manchin will appoint a successor to Roberty Byrd this week. He is calling the state legislature together for a special session on Thursday before making any announcement:
Manchin had told the news website Politico.com last week he would announce today whether he intends to run for the U.S. Senate. However, over the weekend, he changed plans. Machin told a Politico reporter he now plans to wait until after the Legislature has clarified state elections laws. He also will wait until after he appoints someone to occupy Byrd's seat until a special election takes place.(...)
Manchin plans to call state lawmakers to the state Capitol Thursday to clarify that a special election is needed under state law. He has said it is very likely he will run for the seat.
That is a lot of legislation that is being held up by the continuing delay in appointing a replacement to Robert Byrd. Granted, the timing of Senator Byrd's death did create confusion given current law, but it is still surprising there wasn't a plan in place for a smoother transition, given Senator Byrd's long-flagging health.
Additionally, Manchin's chances in a November special election are improving by the day. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that if Manchin did run, the only Republican who wold even have a remote chance against him would be Represenative Shelley Moore Capito. However, Capito herself now sounds unlikely to run:
But when asked if she's afraid to lose, Capito's response doesn't sound like she really wants to run.
Said Capito: "That doesn't scare me. I'm not afraid to lose. I'm afraid to lose momentum that I think I provide for the state."
Democrats are very close to the 60th vote on Wall Street reform. With Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins already indicating they are voting "yes," Republican Scott Brown appears to be the 60th vote. Annie Lowrey:
Speaking on a Massachusetts local television news broadcast, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) indicated that he's leaning towards voting yes on financial regulatory reform. "I'm going to be making a decision soon, but I'm liking what I see," Brown said.
This by no means rules out a Lucy and the football moment, where one of the Senators currently on record as favoring passage withdraws his or her support (this includes Democrats, too). However, if all existing yes votes hold, and assuming Robert Byrd's replacement will be available next week, two defecting Republicans (Brown and Collins) would be enough to cancel out one defecting Democrat (Russ Feingold).
On Feingold's "no" vote Speaking of Feingold, one question I have been wrestling with is if having credible progressive leverage on future Wall Street reform bills from Feingold's "no" vote is more valuable than the concession Scott Brown wrung out of the conference committee last week (replacing a $19 billion tax on banks over five years with a cancellation of TARP and increases in FDIC insurance fees to larger banks) because Feingold refused to vote yes. Given the strong political ramifications of ending TARP, it very well might be. Or, at least it isn't clear right now if Feingold's "no" vote is a net negative.
A revolt among big donors on Wall Street is hurting fundraising for the Democrats' two congressional campaign committees, with contributions from the world's financial capital down 65 percent from two years ago.
The drop in support comes from many of the same bankers, hedge fund executives and financial services chief executives who are most upset about the financial regulatory reform bill that House Democrats passed last week with almost no Republican support. The Senate expects to take up the measure this month.
There are actually multiple reasons for this decline. One reason, obviously, is Wall Street reform. Another is that Chuck Schumer is no longer running the DSCC, and he had strong connections to NYC-area Wall Street doors. A third explanation is that some of these wealthy donors are also upset over the lack of progressive progress in the Democratic agenda, and as such don't want to donate to party committees that will focus their spending on conservative Democrats. A fourth explanation is that many wealthy donors simply like to back the party that appears headed to victory, and right now Democrats are far from a lock.
The simple fact is that there are a lot of good reforms in this bill, voting to maintain the status quo won't prevent a financial meltdown either, and that no one I know in the Wall Street reform community thinks this bill ends the overall fight.
After passing literally nothing of substance into law in June, Congress will be in recess off starting on Friday, July 2nd and resuming on Monday, July 12th. Considering how little they got done over the past five weeks, there is a long list of issues they will struggle with during the break, and when they return:
Dems need one more vote to pass unemployment extension. Passing a nearly stand-alone unemployment extension (it is coupled with an extension of the homebuyer's tax credit) is the only thing that could actually happen before recess. However, it might not, since Democrats are one vote short and Byrd's replacement won't be around until after recess. Annie Lowrey has the state of play:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is telling reporters that he has the votes of two Republicans for his extension of federal unemployment insurance benefits. He also says he is one vote away from having 60 senators to vote for cloture on the bill, which would then move forward to a final vote.
Though there are currently 58 members who caucus with the Democrats, meaning the addition of two Republicans brings the number to 60, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) is not in support of Reid's bill. "If we had Senator Byrd's replacement we would have 60," Reid told The Hill. "We have to wait and see what a couple of Republicans do." The two Republicans are most likely Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, both of whom have signaled they would be willing to vote for a standalone measure.
A Senate Democratic aide says gaining the 60th vote with both Collins and Snowe likely on board is proving extremely difficult - because Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) has indicated he will not vote for the proposal.
This bill originally had nearly $200 billion in new domestic spending. It included tens of billions, each, to prevent laying off teachers, preventing reduced Medicare payments to doctors, funding Medicaid, infrastructure projects, the extension of a variety of tax breaks, AND unemployment benefits. It was, in effect, a second stimulus bill. Now, even worn down the the nub, it is still in serious danger of being defeated.
Wall Street reform definitely will not be finished this week: This evening, House passed the conference report on Wall Street reform, 237-192 (with 3 Republican votes, actually). However, we are still going into the recess on this one. Harry Reid says Wall Street reform will not be done before the July recess:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Wednesday that Senate procedures would not allow him to bring the bill to the floor on Thursday.
Members of the Senate will be away from Washington on Friday to attend the funeral of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) in Charleston.
"I can't because I can't procedurally get to it," Reid said.
The current plan is to file cloture on July 12th, the day Congress returns. So, Wall Street gets a chance to peel off enough votes to defeat the bill.
War supplemental legislation also headed until after recess: Yesterday, House Democrats stripped $3.9 billion in aid to the Afghanistan government from the war supplemental bill, citing corruption. That change alone guaranteed that this fight would not be finished before the break, since any changes to the bill have to also be approved by the Senate (which passed war supplemental that included the $3.9 billion). Today, House Dems are proposing a further change that would provide $10 billion in aid to states:
House Democrats today proposed adding $10 billion to a pending war-funding bill to prevent layoffs of an estimated 140,000 school teachers as part of an effort to revive a stalled jobs agenda
Given the fate of the second stimulus bill in the Senate, I am not confident about this passing. However, given that it will likely further delay passage of the war supplemental, I am all for it. No domestic economic relief funding, then no war funding. Block the bill until we get relief here at home.
Kagan continues to sail through confirmation hearings. No trouble spots have appeared for Kagan yet in her confirmation hearings. Don't expect any problems to appear, either. As Chriis Hayes said:
Just occurred to me that these hearings are MUCH easier when you don't have decades of decisions you need to both recall and defend.
Compromises continuing on climate change. Once Wall Street reform is passed or defeated in the first week after recess, it will be on to the energy / climate bill. Just in case you missed it, yesterday John Kerry beautifully summarized the state of that bill:
"We believe we have compromised significantly, and we're prepared to compromise further," Kerry said.
That's what's on tap in the Senate for the next month. And really, that is what's on tap in Congress until the elections. Once Congress adjourns in early August, they won't be back until after Labor Day. And, even when they do return, don't expect much to get done so close to the elections.
Immediately after the elections, there are two big fights:
Reforming Senate procedure:: On this subject, a new Brookings Institute paper on that subject is worth a read. It provides a good background on recent procedural fights in the Senate, and examines possibilities for reform. Of particular interest, it argues that just forcing the minority to engage in a "real filibuster" won't work.
Deficit commission report: Personally, I still think anything the deficit commission recommends (report due in Decemeber) in will be too unpopular to ever pass Congress. A coalition also seems impossible legislatively, as proposing just one tax increase, and one benefit reduction, would sink the whole enterprise. However, with even Andy Stern, one of the more progressive members of hte deficit commission, suggesting that some of the Social Seccurity trust fund should be invested in Wall Street, it seems like this is going to be a big fight we have to negage anyway.
That is what is on tap for the next six to seven months in Congress--plan accordingly.
In the extended entry, you will find a very lengthy description of what victories were won in the Wall Street reform bill, what compromises were made, and what defeats were suffered. It is, on balance, an argument for why we should pass the Wall Street reform bill, and a roadmap of where the fight continues.
Senator Russ Feingold is a personal hero of mine. Today, he posted an editorial explaining why he is opposing this bill. I am not going to pick a fight with Senator Feingold over what he could have done, or should have done on the bill. While this is a rebuttal of sorts, mainly it is to let people know that there is a lot of good in this bill, and it is possible to present that information in an honest, self-aware manner that acknowledges where it falls short.
There are a lot of victories in this bill. We need to pass those victories into law. If the bill is defeated by pro-Wall Street forces over the next two weeks, the only parts which will be defeated are the victories, while all of its shortcomings will remain in place. If it is defeated, the 1999 financial deregulation package will remain the basic framework under which our financial system operates, and we all know how that worked out. If it is defeated, no one will ever really take on the banks again, as their victory even after a financial meltdown, even at the trough of their popularity, and even during wide Democratic control of Congress, would demonstrate their invincibility.
The list in the extended entry was prepared by numerous people associated with Americans for Financial Reform. It is a work in progress, but I hope you find it to be a useful touchstone.
President Obama is giving a speech on the economy today in Wisconsin. Conveniently, is the home state of the lone Democratic Senator, Russ Feingold, who has vowed to block the Wall Street reform bill (Washington's Maria Cantwell is undecided). This trip is reminiscent of President Obama's visit to Ohio late in the health reform fight, a trip which played a role in persuading Representative Dennis Kucinich to vote in favor of that bill.
Don't expect any political pressure to move Feingold, however, given his long track record of taking iconoclastic positions. Feingold voted against using military force in the Balkans and Iraq, declined DSCC "soft money" in his 1998 re-election campaign, voted against 1999 financial deregulation, was lone vote against the Patriot Act in 2001, first Senator to propose a withdrawal timeline from Iraq in 2005, introduced a censure measure on Bush in 2006, voted against TARP in both October 2008 and January 2009, etc. Even if I do not approve of Feingold's actions on the Wall Street reform bill, his overall record is truly inspiring.
While the trip to Wisconsin may be just a coincidence, it could also be the start of a two week long fight over final passage of the conference committee report on the Wall Street reform bill. Continued demurring from a number of Senators (most notably Scott Brown), combined with memorial services for Senator Robert Byrd, has all but guaranteed that the Wall Street reform fight will continue over the July recess. Those are the signals coming from top Democrats, too:
As much as Senate Democrats wanted to pass their Wall Street reform bill by the end of the week, the death of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) Monday morning made that almost impossible. Byrd will lie in state in the Capitol for most of tomorrow, and senators will spend much of Friday at a ceremony in West Virginia, eating up a great amount of the week's remaining Senate floor time. As early as yesterday morning, Senate Whip Dick Durbin told reporters it would be difficult to finish up the bill before July 4, and last night after the conference committee adjourned, legislators suggested very strongly that the vote in the Senate would have to wait.
The House of Representatives is expected to pass the conference report today. When Congress returns on Monday, July 12th, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will most likely file for cloture on the conference report. This will set up a vote on either Tuesday, July 13th, or Wednesday, July 14th. This makes for an intervening period of at least 13 days when opponents of the bill will try to get three of the following five Senators to vote no on cloture: Scott Brown, Maria Cantwell, Susan Collins, Charles Grassley and Olympia Snowe. With Robert Byrd's replacement likely to be sworn in before the vote, Democrats will also need three of those five in order to reach cloture, and send the bill to President Obama's desk later in the week.
So, it's a two week fight, and the terms are best three out of five. We should be able to win this, but there is recent precedent for Democratic members of Congress getting scared by right-wing turnout at townhalls. As I said in the post just below this, it ain't over 'till it's over.
As you have heard, the Wall Street reform conference committee re-opened yesterday. In an attempt to win the 60 votes needed for cloture in the Senate, conferees voted to strike a $19 billion tax assessment on banks to pay for a liquidation fund of failing financial institutions, and replaced it with higher FDIC premiums on large banks, as well as an early end to TARP:
By stopping additional payments from the Troubled Asset Relief Program a little more than three months before it formally ends, the proposal would save $11 billion. That would cover most of the projected $19-billion cost of the reforms over 10 years. (...)
To cover the remaining cost of the reform package, Dodd's plan also would increase the premiums that banks with more than $10 billion in assets pay for federal deposit insurance, administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
A $19 billion tax on banks would have been better policy, both because it provided a long-term funding source and because it would have reduced the concentration of power and wealth of the big banks. Still, on the bright side, getting almost every Republican to vote against ending the bailout, in the form of TARP, should have significant political benefits. Every Republican conferees voted against ending TARP yesterday, for starters.
Even with this change to the bill, the 60 votes needed for passage this week have not been secured. It is believed that Collins and Snowe will support the bill now. However, Scott Brown and Maria Cantwell are still maybes. Unless both of them come out in support, then the bill cannot pass this week. Unless one of them comes out in support, then the bill cannot even pass in two weeks, when Robert Byrd's replacement will be sworn into the Senate. Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa is another potential vote.
Speaking of Robert Byrd, his funeral is on Friday. It will be attended by numerous Senators, meaning that there will not be any chance of getting 60 Senators to vote for cloture that day. Thus, cloture would have to be achieved by late tomorrow in order for the bill to pass this week.
So, how soon the House passes the bill (it is expected to do so today, but every hour matters now), and what public statements we hear from Cantwell, Scott Brown, and Grassley mean a great deal. If the conference report on the bill is not passed through both chambers before Friday morning, it will require a vote when the Senate returns from 4th of July recess. Bank lobbyists and the tea party will use this time to aggressively attack the bill at townhalls around the country, thus potentially shaking loose a couple of votes and putting it in danger once again.
It ain't over 'till its over. That is just as true on Wall Street reform as it was on health insurance reform.
Update 2--Agreement reached (?): An agreement has apparently been reached on the amendment posted below. Now, we will see if it generates enough votes to pass the bill. Sheesh...
****
In order to reach an agreement with the three New England Republicans, the conference committee on the Wall Street reform bill reconvened at 5 pm, eastern, today. I have obtained a draft copy of the proposed changes tot he bill. You can read it here:
Basically, it proposes raising the $19 billion for the liquidation fund by allowed the FDIC to increase insurance rates on banks with total assets of more than $10 billion. Doesn't really seem like a big deal--just more delays.
Of course, at this point, obviously no deal is final until it is final. This is just a draft. We will have to see where it ends up.
Update 1: Just a note: this proposal was not made by Scott Brown or any of the Republicans. This is being proposed to them, not by them.
Update 2: Susan Collins says she can support the bill if the bank tax is removed:
"The bill is not perfect. But I believe if you take out the new bank tax that, on balance, it would improve our financial system and I would support it," Susan Collins told reporters in a Capitol hallway.
Sure thing, Lucy.
Update: Politico has more on this. It appears the conference committee will definitely re-open,to find a different funding source for the bill instead of the $19 billion bank tax:
In an extraordinary move aimed at winning over reluctant Republican senators, the top Democratic negotiators on the Wall Street reform bill will reopen the conference committee Tuesday to swap out a controversial $19 billion tax on big banks, according to House and Senate aides.(...)
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) are considering replacing the tax by tapping unused TARP funds and raising the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation premium ratio, sources said.
The Politico story above suggested that a 2pm meeting of the conference committee was possible, but I am hearing that isn't happening.
More updates as they come. Original story below.
****
While nothing is definite, it is looking increasingly likely that the Wall Street reform bill will head back to conference committee for further alterations. Latest developments:
Scott Brown has sent a letter to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd saying that he will vote against the final bill if it contains the $19 billion bank assessment / tax. It is unclear if he has also closed the door on voting for cloture, but this still doesn't look good.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is now being vague on when the vote on the final bill will take place. This is a strong sign that Democrats are seriously considering going back to conference committee. This morning, I heard they were either going to schedule a vote, or go back to committee.
Senate #3 Chuck Schumer says "nothing definitive yet," but is demurring when asked if the bill will pass this week. Passage by the end of this week had been a long-standing goal.
Most signs are now pointing to re-engaging the conference committee. If a bill is not passed this week, it will not be passed next week either, as Congress is on break. On the other hand, it should allow for Senator Byrd's replacement to be in the Senate, as s/he will not be named until after Byrd's funeral this Friday.
Even with Senator Byrd's replacement, Democrats will need four of the following eight votes to pass the bill: Bayh (IN), S. Brown (MA), Cantwell (WA), Collins (ME), Feingold (WI), Grassley (IA), Lugar (IN) or Snowe (ME). Feingold and Lugar are probably the least gettable votes in that group, while Bayh and Cantwell are probably the most gettable. So, in more detail, we are looking at two votes from Grassley and the New England Republican triumvirate.
At this point, getting Bayh, Cantwell, Snowe, Grassley and Collins might be the only way to avoid returning to conference committee. Possible, but difficult.
If the conference committee is re-opened, hopefully, Feingold will actually it this time around, and take some leverage away from Presidents Snowe, Collins and Brown.
More than two years after the collapse of Bear Stearns, the House and Senate finally ironed out their differences on Wall Street reform in the wee, small hours of Friday morning. The bill now goes back to both the House and Senate for final approval, but it's fate in the Senate is uncertain following the defection of Tea Party Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA).
Difficult times ahead for Wall Street reform. At this point it is mianly about vote counting, in an attempt to reach 60 Senate votes for cloture (but not necessarily for the final vote). Here are where things stand.
Feingold: Feingold is definitely a "no," likely on both cloture and on the final vote. I agree with David Dayen that Feingold was never going to vote for this bill. He never really engaged the legislative process on this one, and only threw out a lengthy, laundry list of concerns toward the very end of the process. At that late point, there was no way to meet all of them. And no, I don't get voting for the status quo, especially when Feingold rightly voted against it in 1999, and when he says there are some good things in the bill.
Cantwell: Still no word on Cantwell, although her concerns were apparently addressed in the conference committee..
Byrd replacement: Don't expect a replacement for Robert Byrd until after his funeral, which is scheduled for Friday. Since Congress is off next week, there will be no replacement for Byrd until Congress returns in two weeks. This could delay the vote until that time, as well.
Collins and Brown Additionally, Susan Collins has joined Scott Brown in raising concerns over a new bank tax, which would cost banks $19 billion over five years. These two want "reform," but also want to protect big banks at all costs. This reminds me of Snowe's objection to the public option, that public health insurance would be too inexpensive.
Snowe Olymnpia Snowe sounds a bit more positive than Collins or Brown, but she is very good at playing Lucy with the football, so don't count on her until she actually votes yes.
Grassley, Bayh and Luga: Additional swing votes are Charles Grassley (who voted against cloture, but voted for the final bill, back in May), Evan Bayh (who also seems to be wavering), and Richard Luga (more of a longshot).
All told, for the bill to reach cloture, four of these nine votes are required. If Democrats believe they have the votes-or are going to attempt to call this handful of Republicans on a bluff--expect them to move forward and schedule a vote in the House later today. If they don't think they have the votes, expect the bill to be opened up again to further appease the New England Republicans.
The death of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) complicates Democratic efforts to push the final agreement on bank reform through the U.S. Senate as they now lack the crucial 60th vote to prevent a Republican filibuster. They had hoped to pass the bill this week.
Democratic leaders essentially have a two options:
1. Delay bringing the final conference report to the Senate floor until West Virginia Gov. Joe Machin (D) appoints an interim replacement for Byrd.
2. Try to convince one of two Democrats opposed to the bill -- Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) -- to support it now. If necessary, they might need to make additional modifications to the conference report.
You can immediately see how option #1 works, though Gov. Manchin would have to work with great dispatch in order to get the conference report passed and signed by the July 4th recess.
Option 2 may be more difficult to work out, especially if they're serious about needing to make modifications to the conference report in order to get it done. It's not clear to me that that's the case, though. Feingold is always a tough nut to crack, of course. We all know that. But I'd heard it discussed over the past few days that Cantwell's biggest concerns might actually have been addressed satisfactorily in the conference report, so she may not be as difficult to get, especially in a pinch like this.
Why would it be hard to modify the conference report at this point? Because it's already done, and you'll recall that technically, the report isn't subject to amendment at this point. The House can, of course, opt to recommit the report to conference for the purposes of making changes designed to bring Feingold and/or Cantwell on board, if necessary. But I'm not sure you're likely to see the House make that kind of accommodation for the Senate, rather than putting it on the Senate to get its own membership in line or risk sinking the bill. I suppose it'd also be within bounds to table the conference report, reconvene the conference, and issue a new report, provided they could get agreement on it. But any options involving modifications to the report would have to be implemented before the first house agreed to the existing report, since that action dissolves the conference committee.
Now, the various options for facilitating changes to the report just discussed are premised on the traditional practice of having the house which agreed to the conference proposed by the other house be the first to act on the conference report. However, that's just practice. There are no hard and fast rules about that. So in theory, the Senate could seek to act first and move to recommit the report to conference, or table the report and seek to reconvene. Whether that would require the transfer of the papers from the House back to the Senate isn't exactly clear, though given the formality with which that practice has been observed, you'd think that yes, it would indeed require House cooperation. Which as I said is not necessarily a given, though it's hard to see them leveraging the death of Senator Byrd that way.
Still, it seems considerably more likely that Senate leaders would be looking to Sen. Cantwell for her agreement, rather than heading down any of the more convoluted paths to passage. Not only that, but Cantwell is hardly the only option available when casting about for additional votes.
STATE BLOGS
