Levin-Reed Amendment Designed to Fail

[ralphmich3]

The Levin-Reed Amendment (calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 9 months) to the defense appropriations bill only needed a simple majority to pass (it did not need the 60 votes for cloture that non-appropriations bills need)....

AND GUESS WHAT FOLKS.... WE HAVE A TIE VOTE!!!! - 47 YEAS TO 47 NAYS....wow.. but that means the amendment fails. So close and yet, so far.

Three Dem. Senators voted AGAINST THE BILL:

Dodd
Ben Nelson
Pryor

(amazing...)

Two Dem Senators DID NOT BOTHER TO VOTE:

Boxer
Durbin

(equally amazing)
BTW: independent Sanders was A.W.O.L. as well


Had ANY ONE of the above six Senators voted in the affirmative the bill would have carried... i.e. 48 to 47 votes...

[Mass]

1. It still would have failed because the amendment needed 60 votes to pass.

I was surprised that Durbin did not bother to vote as he was a co-sponsor of the amendment.

Dodd did not vote because he said he would not vote for something that did not stop funds.

But, anyway, even if the 6 Dems had voted, it still would not have passed.

[ralphmich3]

3. Cloture: Not needed on appropriations bills

Cloture is not needed..

And so what? why vote the wrong way?

[Mass]

4. Go see Thomas. You will see the amendment needed 3/5 of the votes.

You can ask why Reid agreed with that (that would be a good question), but even if a senator had voted or changed their votes, the amendment still would not have passed.

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00346

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Levin Amdt. No. 2898 )
Vote Number: 346 Vote Date: September 21, 2007, 09:57 AM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2898 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
Statement of Purpose: To provide for a reduction and transition of United States forces in Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 47
NAYs 47
Not Voting 6

3/5 * 94 = 56.4

[ralphmich3]

6. The Vote was NOT on cloture...

The bill would have succeeded - i.e. attached to the appropriations bill

[Mass]

7. Please read what I posted - I do not like the fact Reid agreed to a 3/5 vote, but HE DID.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here and may be if you explain better, I could understand, but the fact is that Reid agreed to have ALL the amendments to the Defense bill passed with 60 votes (which is the reason why Webb's amendment failed with 56 votes).

So, no, as the vote was architectured, they needed 3/5 of the votes to pass.

So, if your point is to ask why Reid agreed with that, it is a good question. Otherwise, I do not understand your point.

[ralphmich3]

10. I guess I'll have to call my Senator's office

for an explanation of the voting procedures. I thought appropriations bills do not need cloture, I do not know about amendments to appropriations bills.

[Mass]

11. This is not an appropriation bill - It is an authorization bill

This said, I still do not understand why Reid agreed to have a 3/5 majority vote rather than to force the GOP to file for cloture and show how they are obstructionist.

[karynnj]

13. I think Reid agreed to this because McConnell said they would filibuster everything

So, Reid accepting they would, opted for one vote on each amendment. (Any that pass require one vote rather than two to save time.

[Mass]

15. I think this is a silly move - If they want to filibuster, let them filibuster...

[karynnj]

16. I agree - especially because then they are at least seen as obstructing

I was trying to come up with any rational reason.

[ralphmich3]

8. All Amendments need 3/5's majority?

and all amendments need cloture?

[Mass]

9. This is what Reid agreed to (I do not think it is the rule though)

5 amendments each side and a 3/5 amendments.

[ralphmich3]

12. Then Dodd is really out of it....

If all of these amendments require a 3/5's majority, then Dodd's vote against this bill is just a strange combination of swaggering in the face of failure.

It means we will be in Iraq until 2009...

[rateyes]

2. I do think cloture was filed on this bill...

meaning it needed 60 votes. If you are correct, however, then something is fishy.

[JDPriestly]

5. But it was another lost chance to show Democratic solidarity

and determination to stop the war. What a shame. Another lost opportunity. I'm particularly surprised that Boxer did not vote.

[karynnj]

14. Dodd may have been pushed to this by Edwards' stance

I agree with you showing Democratic solidarity and trying to move the numbers up would seem to be the way to get any momentum. (I also thing the passage of the Cornyn amendment and not the Boxer one may have soured some people on the current situation. I am shocked that they couldn't pass the Boxer one - there should have been enough people on the other side that agreed that the attacks on Kerry and Cleland were not fair.