U.S. Government is Shutting Down at Midnight

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Where in the Senate rules does it state that it requires 60 Senators to control the Senate?

Rule 22

The cloture rule–Rule 22–is the only formal procedure that Senate rules provide for breaking a filibuster. A filibuster is an attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter. Under cloture, the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours of debate.

I've never seen such a thing.

Now you have.

Fox News:

Who cares?

I'm wrong about... what exactly? I've not said I support the shutdown. I've not said I support removing the filibuster. I've not said just Democrats or just Republicans are responsible for it.

You're wrong about the difference between majority in the Senate and 'control'... implying that the Republican Party is able to pass whatever they want and there's nothing the Democrats can do about it. That is false.

Your tactic is not to openly blame... you're too clever for that. Your tactic is to insinuate, distract, and twist the entire conversation around in the minds of reader. I've seen it before. It will work, if someone doesn't call you out on your misrepresentations... so I am calling you out.

The Democratic Party, under orders from Sen. Chuck Shumer, filibustered a budget resolution Friday night. They have stated no objection whatsoever to anything in the resolution, despite being asked multiple times if they did. The resolution included pay for firefighters and the military, 6 years of continual funding for CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program), and provided for continuing defense and research contracts. Those programs are now shut down due solely to the actions of the Senate Democrats.

None of that is under question. It has all been openly admitted by the Democrats themselves who refused to end the filibuster. The only complaint they have is that the budget resolution does not include codification of DACA, which is not only not a budget item, but which has not been agreed to yet and thusly could not have been included.

Please, twist away at that.

TheRedneck

Votes for cloture has nothing to do with control of the Senate; these are two separate things entirely. Your idea of control of the Senate is wrong. You don't get to redefine the meaning of words.

The rules for cloture are not talking about control of the Senate. It's talking about a specific process to limit debate. Normal Senate rules allow Senators to speak on a single question (bill like this or other matter) twice per legislative day and do not limit time to speak. This allows a filibuster to exist. Cloture is not used for every single thing. The only reason it would be required to end debate is if someone initiates a filibuster.

Republicans can alter rules to remove the filibuster and then pass whatever they want if they so choose. That you do not like or agree with that doesn't negate that it this is a true statement. They have already used this power to remove the filibuster from Supreme Court appointments.

Yeah, who cares about facts...

They weren't at the point in the process where someone could filibuster the bill itself; if they were, then McConnell wouldn't have been able to vote no and take the bill back. It would have been stuck permanently in debate. Yet, McConnell voted no and the bill can be brought back later. Cloture can exist without a filibuster; read up on Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate (PDF) from the Senate itself:

This report discusses major aspects of Senate procedure related to filibusters and cloture. The two, however, are not always closely linked in practice as they are in popular conception. Even when opponents of a measure resort to extended debate or other tactics of delay, supporters may not decide to seek cloture (although this situation seems to have been more common in earlier decades than today). In recent times, by contrast, Senate leadership has increasingly made use of cloture as a normal tool for managing the flow of business on the floor, even when no evident filibuster has yet occurred.

It would be erroneous to assume the presence or absence of cloture attempts is a reliable guide to the specific presence or absence of filibusters.

There are two points where a filibuster can be initiated - during debate on consideration of a question, and during actual debate of a question. Therefore, the only filibuster that could exist is one on consideration. Cloture can be invoked prior to a filibuster occurring, however. Read Invoking Cloture in the Senate (pdf), again from the Senate itself:

Cloture may be invoked only on a matter that is pending before the Senate or on unfinished business. It is not in order, except by unanimous consent, to invoke cloture on a bill before the Senate has agreed to consider it. On the other hand, there is no limit on the number of times that the Senate can vote on motions to invoke cloture on a bill, amendment, or other matter it is considering.

Although not explicitly provided for in Senate rules, it has become common practice for the majority leader to make a motion to proceed to consider a measure, immediately file cloture on the motion, and then withdraw the motion to proceed. This allows the Senate to conduct other floor business while the cloture petition is "running" in the background. At the time appointed by Rule XXII, the cloture petition on the motion to proceed is automatically laid before the Senate for a vote.

This is what McConnell did. A filibuster had not yet been invoked. If a filibuster had occurred, the bill would be dead. It is not.

I've openly stated my motivations. You don't get to redefine those, either. There is no twisting. There are objective truths that rebut erroneous claims such as what control of the Senate means, whether a filibuster has taken place, and whether Democrats were solely responsible for shutting down the government. Your continued attempts to defame my character is disappointing.

I'll reiterate: there was no filibuster. There may have been the threat of a filibuster. Yet, the very fact that McConnell is able to bring the exact same bill up for consideration again precludes a filibuster having taken place.

You can accept the reality of the situation, or you can continue redefining reality in order to appear right.

a reply to: Greven

It was a legislative filibuster, spin it however you want, but don't presume to speak about reality.

You said yourself, its to kill a bill, hence why the Dems are doing it.

There is an ongoing effort to kill it, the filibuster that is, go to majority rule, kill off the Dems opposition and get this country going again.

a reply to: Arnie123

There is no spin. This is the simple logic of it:
If a filibuster had been invoked, the bill would be dead.
The bill is not dead (McConnell can bring the exact same bill back to vote again).
Ergo, the filibuster wasn't invoked.

It may have been threatened. McConnell had a vote to invoke cloture prior to a filibuster even happening. That vote failed. It never got to the point that a filibuster could actually occur.

e: People seem to be confused about what I'm saying. I'm not saying someone didn't threaten a filibuster. It simply never got to the point that a filibuster happened, so claims that the legislation was filibustered are inaccurate. I'm not saying I support a shutdown. I'm not even saying that most Democrats didn't threaten a filibuster - I do know that not all Democrats threatened such. What I said repeatedly is that I want to know who specifically threatened a filibuster.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Would you do the same mistake again?That is not a clever thing to do.

a reply to: Greven

You just love to try and complicate issues, don't you? Again, from the United States Senate official web site:

A filibuster is an attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter. Under cloture, the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours of debate.

That is a definition from the official web site. If you don't like it, please contact the IT Administrator responsible for the US Senate. I can't help you there.

Now, a few simple questions, all yes or no answers:

• Did Senator Charles (Chuck) Schumer of New York refuse to yield the floor to allow the Continuing Resolution under consideration to be brought to a vote?
  
• Did Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky introduce a motion to invoke cloture in order to limit debate time on the Continuing Resolution under consideration?
  
• During the vote on cloture for the Continuing Resolution under consideration, did 44 of the 49 Democrat/Independent Senators (I include the two Independents here because they regularly vote with the Democrats) vote to continue debate?
  
• During the vote on cloture for the Continuing Resolution under consideration, did 47 of the 51 Republican Senators vote to invoke closure and end the debate so a vote could be taken?
  
• At any time during the debate on the Continuing Resolution under consideration, did any of the Senators voting against cloture express a problem with anything which was included in the Continuing Resolution under consideration?
  
• Had all 51 Republican Senators voted for cloture, along with the five Democratic Senators that did vote for cloture, would the result have been sufficient to invoke cloture?
  
• Would the invokation of cloture have brought the debate to an end and allowed a vote on the Continuing Resolution under consideration?
  
• Did the Continuing resolution under consideration provide funding to the Federal government for a short term beginning at midnight Friday night?
  
• Did the Federal government officially shut down at midnight Friday night for lack of funding?
  
• Did this shutdown remove funding from the CHIP program?
  
• Did this shutdown cause military personnel to stop receiving pay beginning midnight Friday night?
  
• Did this shutdown cause defense contractors and 'non-essential' government employees to begin receiving notices of expected furloughs?

Now as far as the terminology goes and as for whether or not someone said the word "filibuster" at a specific time or filled out a specific form or did anything else, NO ONE HERE CARES. You are debating semantics, and I choose not to participate in such a worthless discussion. The simple fact is that the government shut down, soldiers are going without pay (and two died this weekend in a helicopter crash in California, working for free), multiple defense contractors are announcing furloughs (including the one that employs my son), and millions of poor American children who depended on the CHIP program to see a doctor are no longer insured. All because Chuck Schumer decided to delay the Continuing Resolution, thereby shutting down the Federal government, by delaying the vote... the definition of a filibuster according to the US Senate, whether it is such according to you or not.

I really don't care if you want to call what he did a jigglinanner... it makes no difference.

Now, care to type out a series of yes or no answers to the questions I asked above, or do you want to just keep on arguing about what the definition of "is" is?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

You just love to try and complicate issues, don't you? Again, from the United States Senate official web site:

A filibuster is an attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter. Under cloture, the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours of debate.

That is a definition from the official web site. If you don't like it, please contact the IT Administrator responsible for the US Senate. I can't help you there.

Now, a few simple questions, all yes or no answers:

• Did Senator Charles (Chuck) Schumer of New York refuse to yield the floor to allow the Continuing Resolution under consideration to be brought to a vote?
  
• Did Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky introduce a motion to invoke cloture in order to limit debate time on the Continuing Resolution under consideration?
  
• During the vote on cloture for the Continuing Resolution under consideration, did 44 of the 49 Democrat/Independent Senators (I include the two Independents here because they regularly vote with the Democrats) vote to continue debate?
  
• During the vote on cloture for the Continuing Resolution under consideration, did 47 of the 51 Republican Senators vote to invoke closure and end the debate so a vote could be taken?
  
• At any time during the debate on the Continuing Resolution under consideration, did any of the Senators voting against cloture express a problem with anything which was included in the Continuing Resolution under consideration?
  
• Had all 51 Republican Senators voted for cloture, along with the five Democratic Senators that did vote for cloture, would the result have been sufficient to invoke cloture?
  
• Would the invokation of cloture have brought the debate to an end and allowed a vote on the Continuing Resolution under consideration?
  
• Did the Continuing resolution under consideration provide funding to the Federal government for a short term beginning at midnight Friday night?
  
• Did the Federal government officially shut down at midnight Friday night for lack of funding?
  
• Did this shutdown remove funding from the CHIP program?
  
• Did this shutdown cause military personnel to stop receiving pay beginning midnight Friday night?
  
• Did this shutdown cause defense contractors and 'non-essential' government employees to begin receiving notices of expected furloughs?

Now as far as the terminology goes and as for whether or not someone said the word "filibuster" at a specific time or filled out a specific form or did anything else, NO ONE HERE CARES. You are debating semantics, and I choose not to participate in such a worthless discussion. The simple fact is that the government shut down, soldiers are going without pay (and two died this weekend in a helicopter crash in California, working for free), multiple defense contractors are announcing furloughs (including the one that employs my son), and millions of poor American children who depended on the CHIP program to see a doctor are no longer insured. All because Chuck Schumer decided to delay the Continuing Resolution, thereby shutting down the Federal government, by delaying the vote... the definition of a filibuster according to the US Senate, whether it is such according to you or not.

I really don't care if you want to call what he did a jigglinanner... it makes no difference.

Now, care to type out a series of yes or no answers to the questions I asked above, or do you want to just keep on arguing about what the definition of "is" is?

TheRedneck

I'm aware of the definition of filibuster. You don't seem aware that if a filibuster occurs and cloture does not pass, the bill is dead and gone. It can't be brought back as-is. Yet, the CR we're talking about can be brought back. Why? It hasn't been filibustered - it may have been if McConnell moved forward, but that didn't happen.

The answers then are:
No (it hadn't gotten that far, and rather makes the rest unnecessary).
Yes.
Yes.
No (your numbers are off by two - McCain & McConnell did not vote for cloture).
No (debate didn't occur).
No.
No (debate hadn't occurred yet, but invoking cloture would restrict the future debate).
Maybe (not sure, actually; invoking cloture limits debate, but that limit is 30 hours - more than they had).
Yes.
No (funding had already expired in September, though a patch just before Christmas funded it until the 19th).
Yes (might want to talk to McConnell about rejecting funding the military).
Yes.

Yeah, I'll find out if it impacts my family in the morning. Anger over the shutdown doesn't change how this played out. Schumer did not delay a vote. In fact, McConnell purposely delayed the cloture vote to Friday, leaving only hours to tie things up. I'll apologize for the caps that follow, but that's how it's written and I haven't the time to transform it.

Schumer requested a vote on cloture on Thursday, after McConnell wanted the vote on Friday:

SO I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE MANDATORY QUORUM CALL BE WAIVED AND THAT NOTWITHSTANDING RULE 22, THE CLOTURE MOTION FILED ON THE MOTION TO CONCUR IN THE HOUSE AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 195 RIPEN AT 10:00 P.M. THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 10:00 P.M. TONIGHT.

McConnell of course objected. McConnell also objected to McKaskill's last ditch effort to pay the military after the cloture vote failed on Friday.

Oh, and a bit earlier on Thursday, McConnell says this:

NOW THAT SAME FIXATION, THAT SAME FIXATION, HAS THEM THREATENING TO FILIBUSTER FUNDING FOR THE GOVERNMENT OVER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

McConnell himself says it was a threat. That is the reasoning for invoking cloture. It wasn't because a filibuster had occurred. Oh, and one more thing from Schumer:

I WILL HAVE MORE TO SAY AFTER THIS VOTE ON THE MOTION TO PROCEED WHICH DEMOCRATS WILL SUPPORT, BECAUSE WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. WE WANT TO GET SOMETHING DONE. WE DON'T WANT TO KEEP KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD. BUT I JUST HAD TO ANSWER THE LEADER BRIEFLY. THE LEADER IS LOOKING TO DEFLECT BLAME, BUT IT JUST WON'T WORK. WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. IT'S COMPLETE DISARAY ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE. THE BOTTOM LINE IS VERY SIMPLE -- OUR LEADER, OUR REPUBLICAN LEADER, HAS SAID THAT HE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE UNTIL HE KNOWS WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP STANDS. THAT'S WHY NEGOTIATIONS HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANYWHERE.

McConnell chose not to proceed after the cloture vote failed. That's up to him. Proceeding risked a potential filibuster, which if it occurred, would kill the bill and require the House to make a new one. On the other hand, Democrats might not have filibustered. Not proceeding shut down the government.

a reply to: Greven

I'm aware of the definition of filibuster.

No, you think you are. You are wrong.

• Did Senator Charles (Chuck) Schumer of New York refuse to yield the floor to allow the Continuing Resolution under consideration to be brought to a vote?

  
  No (it hadn't gotten that far, and rather makes the rest unnecessary).

  
  Yes, that is exactly what happened.
  
  
• Did Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky introduce a motion to invoke cloture in order to limit debate time on the Continuing Resolution under consideration?

  
  Yes.

  
  Correct, which is proof why you are wrong above.
  
  
• During the vote on cloture for the Continuing Resolution under consideration, did 44 of the 49 Democrat/Independent Senators (I include the two Independents here because they regularly vote with the Democrats) vote to continue debate?

  
  Yes.

  
  Correct
  
  
• No (your numbers are off by two - McCain & McConnell did not vote for cloture).

  
  No (your numbers are off by two - McCain & McConnell did not vote for cloture).

  
  You might want to inform the media about McConnell... but my point stands.
  
  
• At any time during the debate on the Continuing Resolution under consideration, did any of the Senators voting against cloture express a problem with anything which was included in the Continuing Resolution under consideration?

  
  No (debate didn't occur).

  
  I have watched it for three days on CSPAN. Are you claiming aliens have hijacked my TV and are feeding false information?
  
  
• Had all 51 Republican Senators voted for cloture, along with the five Democratic Senators that did vote for cloture, would the result have been sufficient to invoke cloture?

  
  No.

  
  So even with some Democratic support, you admit the Republican majority was not able to control the floor of the Senate. Thank you.
  
  
• Would the invokation of cloture have brought the debate to an end and allowed a vote on the Continuing Resolution under consideration?

  
  No (debate hadn't occurred yet, but invoking cloture would restrict the future debate).

  
  Again with the darn aliens?
  
  
• Did the Continuing resolution under consideration provide funding to the Federal government for a short term beginning at midnight Friday night?

  
  Maybe (not sure, actually; invoking cloture limits debate, but that limit is 30 hours - more than they had).

  
  The limit is a maximum of 30 hours, but shorter times can be proposed. As I understand it, this cloture vote was for an immediate end to debate.
  
  
• Did the Continuing resolution under consideration provide funding to the Federal government for a short term beginning at midnight Friday night?

  
  Yes.

  
  Correct
  
  
• Did the Federal government officially shut down at midnight Friday night for lack of funding?
  It appears you failed to address this one?
  
  
• Did this shutdown remove funding from the CHIP program?

  
  No (funding had already expired in September, though a patch just before Christmas funded it until the 19th).

  
  Incorrect. The previous Continuing Resolutions funded CHIP for their duration. This one, incidentally, funded CHIP for 6 years.
  
  
• Did this shutdown cause military personnel to stop receiving pay beginning midnight Friday night?

  
  Yes (might want to talk to McConnell about rejecting funding the military).

  
  Correct. As to your snide remark, the Democratic Party refused to bring a vote to the Continuing Resolution. You already admitted to that in the third question.
  
  
• Did this shutdown cause defense contractors and 'non-essential' government employees to begin receiving notices of expected furloughs?

  
  Yes.

  
  Correct

You again are trying to use semantics and redefinition to confuse the issue... apparently that's either all you have or you're following the official Democratic story, because that's all they have. I'll try to make it as simple for you as I can:

• Committees review bills and bring them to the floor of the Senate.
  
• Debate occurs whenever a Senator speaks to a bill.
  
• There is no Senate time limit on debate.
  
• A motion to proceed, if unopposed, will call up a vote on the actual bill.
  
• If one or more Senators continue the debate, for the sole purpose of delaying the vote itself, it is called a 'filibuster.'
  
• A filibuster succeeds when the opposing party withdraws consideration of the bill and the bill is then dead.
  
• A vote for cloture may be called for to limit debate, but must be approved by 60% or more of the Senators present (called the quorum).
  
• Cloture may allow for continuing debate for any time up to 30 hours.
  
• There are limits on how often cloture votes may take place.

Please go educate yourself. I said before that I consider you an intelligent debater, but your continual attempts to twist and redefine in this thread are only showing your utter ignorance on Senate proceedings, not to mention your complete bias on the basis of red-blue.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Ah, it appears I did miss the shutdown one. It was rather late. The answer to that one is obvious.

You might want to do something about those aliens. The House passed HR 195 at 7:37pm on Thursday, January 18th. About two hours later, it showed up in the Senate (not much happened in those two hours). Here's the transcript from Thursday, again:

09:50:27 MR. McCONNELL - I UNDERSTAND THE SENATE HAS RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 195.
09:50:31 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - THE SENATOR IS CORRECT.
09:50:34 MR. McCONNELL - MOVE THE CHAIR LAY BEFORE THE SENATE THE MESSAGE AND ASK FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS ON MY MOTION.
09:50:40 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND? THERE APPEARS TO BE. YEAS AND NAYS ARE ORDERED. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. VOTE: VOTE: VOTE:
10:29:28 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - ARE THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? IF NOT, THE YEAS ARE 97, THE NAYS ARE 2. AND THE MOTION IS AGREED TO. THE CHAIR LAYS BEFORE THE SENATE THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE.
10:29:51 THE CLERK - RESOLVED THAT THE HOUSE AGREE TO THE SENATE WITH THE BILL H.R. 195 ENTITLED AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 44 UNITED STATES CODE AND SO FORTH AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES WITH AN AMENDMENT.
10:30:0? MR. McCONNELL: MR. PRESIDENT.
10:30:05 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - THE MAJORITY LEADER.
10:30:07 MR. McCONNELL - I MOVE TO CONCUR ON THE HOUSE AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 195. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THERE NOW UP TO TEN MINUTES OF DEBATE EQUALLY DIVIDED ON THE MOTION TO CONCUR AND FOLLOWING THE USE OR YIELDING BACK OF TIME THE SENATE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO CONCUR WITH NO INTERVENING ACTION OR DEBATE.
10:30:28 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - IS THERE OBJECTION?
10:30:31 MR. SCHUMER - RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT.
10:30:33 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER.
10:30:36 MR. SCHUMER - MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD LIKE TO READ A LETTER FROM DANA W. WHITE, SPOKESPERSON FOR THE PENTAGON. QUOTE, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON A CONTINUING RESOLUTION FOR THREE YEARS NOW. OUR CURRENT C.R. EXPIRES 19 JANUARY. THIS IS WASTEFUL AND DESTRUCTIVE. WE NEED A FULLY FUNDED FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET OR FACE RAMIFICATIONS ON OUR MILITARY. THE LEADER WANTS TO MOVE THAT VERY C.R. THAT THE PENTAGON OBJECTS TO, EVEN WITHOUT A 60-VOTE MARGIN. I STRENUOUSLY OBJECT.

This is not a filibuster. Reserving the right to object is giving him a pause to get the notes and get ready to speak. The objection itself is to the unanimous consent request by McConnell. That unanimous consent request itself was for limited debate.

You perhaps do not believe me. However, there are more motions on the legislation; if it had been a filibuster, that couldn't have happened until the cloture vote succeeded - aside from the cloture motion. Continuing:

10:31:13 MR. McCONNELL - MR. PRESIDENT.
10:31:14 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - OBJECTION IS HEARD. THE MAJORITY LEADER.
10:31:18 MR. McCONNELL - I SEND A CLOTURE MOTION TO THE DESK ON THE MOTION TO CONCUR.
10:31:21 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE CLOTURE MOTION.
10:31:25 THE CLERK - CLOTURE MOTION. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED SENATORS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 22 OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE, DO HEREBY MOVE TO BRING TO A CLOSE DEBATE ON THE MOTION TO CONCUR IN THE HOUSE AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 195, SIGNED BY 17 SENATORS AS FOLLOWS.
10:31:41 MR. McCONNELL - I ASK THE READING OF THE NAMES BE DISPENSED WITH.
10:31:44 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - WITHOUT OBJECTION.
10:31:45 MR. McCONNELL - I MOVE TO CONCUR IN THE HOUSE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 195.
10:31:49 MR. SCHUMER - RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT. NO, SORRY. I'M NOT OBJECTING. MR. PRESIDENT.
10:31:56 MR. McCONNELL - MR. PRESIDENT, I --
10:31:57 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - THE MAJORITY LEADER HAS THE FLOOR.
10:32:00 MR. SCHUMER - GO AHEAD.
10:32:01 MR. McCONNELL - I MOVE TO CONCUR IN THE HOUSE AMENDMENT TO 195 WITH A FURTHER AMENDMENT.
10:32:05 THE PRESIDING OFFICER -THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
10:32:07 THE CLERK - THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY, MR. McCONNELL, MOVES TO CONCUR IN THE HOUSE AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 195 WITH AN AMENDMENT NUMBERED 1903.
10:32:18 MR. McCONNELL - I ASK THE READING BE DISPENSED WITH.
10:32:21 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - WITHOUT OBJECTION.
10:32:23 MR. McCONNELL - I ASK FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS ON THE MOTION TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENTS.
10:32:26 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND? THERE APPEARS TO BE. THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE ORDERED.
10:32:34 MR. McCONNELL - I HAVE A SECOND-DEGREE AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
10:32:37 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
10:32:40 THE CLERK - THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY, MR. McCONNELL, PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT NUMBERED 1904 TO AMENDMENT NUMBERED 1903.
10:32:47 MR. McCONNELL - ASK THE READING BE DISPENSED WITH.
10:32:50 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - WITHOUT OBJECTION.
10:32:52 MR. McCONNELL - I MOVE TO REFER THE HOUSE MESSAGE ON H.R. 195 TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TO REPORT BACK FORTHWITH WITH INSTRUCTION.
10:33:01 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
10:33:03 THE CLERK - THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY, MR. McCONNELL, MOVES TO REPORT THE HOUSE MESSAGE ON H.R. 195 TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TO REPORT BACK FORTHWITH WITH INSTRUCTIONS BEING AMENDMENT NUMBERED 1905.
10:33:17 MR. McCONNELL - I ASK FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS ON MY MOTION.
10:33:19 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND? THERE IS. THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE ORDERED.
10:33:28 MR. McCONNELL - I HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS.
10:33:32 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
10:33:34 THE CLERK - THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY, MR. McCONNELL, PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT NUMBERED 1906 TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE MOTION TO REFER H.R. 1905 TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
10:33:48 MR. McCONNELL - I ASK THE READING BE DISPENSED WITH.
10:33:50 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - WITHOUT OBJECTION
10:33:51 MR. McCONNELL - I ASK FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS ON MY AMENDMENT.
10:33:53 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND? THERE IS. THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE ORDERED.
10:33:59 MR. McCONNELL - I HAVE A SECOND-DEGREE AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
10:34:02 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
10:34:03 THE CLERK - THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY, MR. McCONNELL, PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT NUMBERED 1907 TO AMENDMENT NUMBERED 1906.

At this point it was apparent that McConnell was not going to vote on Thursday night to go forward.

Unfortunately, I'm out of characters, but I posted this in my previous post as the first excerpt:

10:34:21 MR. SCHUMER - MR. PRESIDENT, TO DELAY A VOTE ON CLOTURE WHEN WE ALL KNOW THE OUTCOME MAKES NO SENSE...THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 10:00 P.M. TONIGHT.
10:36:12 THE PRESIDING OFFICER - IS THERE OBJECTION?
10:36:14 MR. McCONNELL - I OBJECT.

Nothing else particularly relevant happened and the Senate adjourned at 11:15:31 (though Senator King objected to the adjournment, that failed).

There you have it. McConnell put the cloture vote up prior to a filibuster occurring. Prior to debate. The cloture motion was a preventive measure.

Again, I do not need education on this matter. Are you still going to argue that there was a filibuster in here somewhere?

So they got the government back up and running. Now here is the thing to pay attention to:

Feb is the month to watch, cause then they are going to do this all over again.

a reply to: Greven

Are you still going to argue that there was a filibuster in here somewhere?

No, because Schumer was right about one thing... the uselessness of trying to debate with a bowl of jello. You've made up your mind you know exactly what you're talking about... so be it.

It's a moot point anyway. Schumer blinked. The Schumer Shutdown is over, at least until February the 8th.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Are you still going to argue that there was a filibuster in here somewhere?

No, because Schumer was right about one thing... the uselessness of trying to debate with a bowl of jello. You've made up your mind you know exactly what you're talking about... so be it.

It's a moot point anyway. Schumer blinked. The Schumer Shutdown is over, at least until February the 8th.

TheRedneck

You can't see a point where anyone filibustered either, but instead of accepting that just maybe you might have been mislead by propaganda, you return to personal insults. As Mr. Trump would say - Sad!

I posted a transcript of the proceedings. The whole reason I went and looked at the transcripts in the first place was to see if I had been in error.

No apologies from you of course for your previous remarks, either. Oh, and by the way, you might notice that this isn't even the Mud Pit. There are other things to challenge in your prior response, but I didn't have the characters and now I do not have the patience. I have been very patient with you and others.

a reply to: Greven

My God, man, get a clue!

Schumer started a filibuster. Simple. Even the official web site defined exactly what he did as a "filibuster." Just because I see no further advantage in trying to educate you against your will, it does not mean you are right.

Now please go find someone else to irritate.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
It's really quite funny that you will ignore the transcript of the proceedings and make up what happened.

Schumer's objection to unanimous consent is the only time between the introduction of HR 195 to the Senate and motion to invoke cloture that could conceivably be thought of as a 'filibuster.' The problem is that an objection to a unanimous consent is not a filibuster. Schumer didn't have the floor and so couldn't yield the floor as you have claimed previously.

Do you also think McConnell filibustered repeatedly when he objected to several motions?

I will reiterate. There was no filibuster. There is no instance of the filibuster to be found in the transcript. I considered that I might have been wrong, and spent time looking over it to see whether you might be right. This was not the case. It is as I said so many pages ago:

originally posted by: Greven
You are aware that McConnell held this vote to invoke cloture, to prevent a filibuster, but had secured 5 Democrat votes for simple majority passage (because 4 Republicans intended to vote against it), yes?

Who was the Senator who intended to filibuster?

If nobody really intended to filibuster, then this is all a ploy by McConnell for political gain.

I expected the Democrats to fold, and they did. They played right into McConnell's hand. People willingly accept wrong information, and no matter how hard one strives to show them where and how they are mistaken, they refuse to accept it. Instead, they double down. They lash out with insults, accusations, and conjure ridiculous scenarios ascribing foul intentions to the person just trying to show them the truth.

I should have realized this after the bizarre argument about what control of the Senate meant - which you are still wrong about and still tried to twist only two posts ago the meaning of, by the way - from the Senate website:

Majority Party (November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 2

Total Seats: 100

Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.

Oh, and actions will be taken now.