Amendments offered by Kerry in the Emergency Bill concerning Iraq

[Mass]

As he is not here, we are not hearing about these amendments that would put his previous proposal in the bill (and will not be voted upon as cloture was invoked), but it is worth noting that, yesterday, he submitted a series of amendment on thie issue.

SA 3764. Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Biden) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4939, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 88, line 7, insert ``That from that amount, funds shall be made available for a summit, to be convened by the President not later than 30 days after the date of the formation of the new Government of Iraq, that includes leaders of such Government, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that addresses security guarantees, federalism, oil revenues, militias, reconstruction efforts, and border security:


Provided further,'' after ``


Provided''.



SA 3765. Mr. KERRY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4939, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 88, line 7, insert ``That from that amount, funds shall be made available for a summit, to be convened by the President not later than 30 days after the date of the formation of the new Government of Iraq, that includes leaders of such Government, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that addresses security guarantees, federalism, oil revenues, militias, reconstruction efforts, and border security:


Provided further,'' after ``


Provided''.



SA 3766. Mr. KERRY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4939, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS FROM IRAQ

Sec. __. (a) The President shall withdraw the United States Armed Forces from Iraq at the earliest practicable date if a national unity government is not formed in Iraq by May 22, 2006.

(b) If a national unity government is formed in Iraq by May 22, 2006--

(1) the President shall reach an agreement as soon as possible with such national unity government on a schedule for the withdrawal of United States combat troops from Iraq by December 31, 2006, leaving only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces; and

(2) the President shall consult with Congress regarding such schedule and shall present such withdrawal agreement to Congress immediately upon the completion of the agreement.

(c) The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.



SA 3767. Mr. KERRY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4939, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS FROM IRAQ

Sec. __. (a) The President shall withdraw the United States Armed Forces from Iraq at the earliest practicable date if a national unity government is not formed in Iraq by May 22, 2006.

(b) If a national unity government is formed in Iraq by May 22, 2006--

(1) the President shall reach an agreement as soon as possible with such national unity government on a schedule for the withdrawal of United States combat troops from Iraq by December 31, 2006, leaving only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces; and

(2) the President shall consult with Congress regarding such schedule and shall present such withdrawal agreement to Congress immediately upon the completion of the agreement.

(c) The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.

[TayTay]

1. Ah me, that was nice.

Exactly what he said he would do.

Sigh!

[beachmom]

2. SA #3764 could get bipartisan support

Even the neocons liked the idea of a summit.

Hey -- are our names in the record? I really dug deep into my address book to get people to sign that petition. How many names did he get?

[Mass]

3. Not really - Not a good real summit.where ideas are debated.

They like summits where the other countries do what they want.

Anyway, the Democrats killed any possibility for these amendments as well as the Feingold amendment to be discussed during the debate by voting for cloture.

Grrrrr.

[TayTay]

4. Senate terminologyis strange

the amendments were ordered to lie on the table. Bad amendments, bad, you go lie on the table now.

Strange wording.

[karynnj]

5. Is that like time out?

I noticed that it was for Biden as well - why didn't he vote against cloture.

[TayTay]

6. I don't know.

I foudn this on Parliamentary Procedure, but I'm convinced that too much Parliamentary Procedure rots your brain.

4. When the House has something else which claims its present attention, but would be willing to reserve in their power to take up a proposition whenever it shall suit them, they order it to lie on their table. It may then be called for at any time.

http://www.constitution.org/tj/tj-mpp.htm

The constitutional provision for reconsideration by the Senate is met, under the precedents, by the reading of the veto message, spreading it on the Journal, and adopting a motion (1) to act on it immediately, (2) to refer it, with the accompanying papers, to a standing committee: (3) to order that it lie on the table, to be subsequently considered, or (4) to order its consideration postponed to a definite day. The House's procedures are much the same.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Enactment_law.htm

:shrug:

Motion to Table
technically to "lie on the table," represents an attempt to nullify another motion.

http://www.okinsider.com/miscellaneous07.oki

(Ahm, I'm going to stop looking this up. Because it rots your brain, it doesn't really help and because I could geek out on this stuff forever.

See:

28. To Lay on the Table. This motion takes precedence of all other subsidiary <12> motions and of such incidental <13> questions as are pending at the time it is made. It yields to privileged <14> motions and such motions as are incidental to itself. It is undebatable and cannot have any subsidiary motion applied to it. It may be applied to any main <11> motion; to any question of privilege or order of the day, after it is before the assembly for consideration; to an appeal that does not adhere to the main question, so that the action on the latter would not be affected by the reversal of the chair's decision; or to the motion to reconsider when immediately pending, in which case the question to be reconsidered goes to the table also. No motion that has another motion adhering to it can be laid on the table by itself; if laid on the table it carries with it everything that adheres to it. When a motion is taken from the table <35> everything is in the same condition, as far as practicable, as when the motion was laid on the table, except that if not taken up until the next session the effect of the previous question is exhausted. If debate has been closed by ordering the previous question, or otherwise, up to the moment of taking the last vote under the order, the questions still before the assembly may be laid on the table. Thus, if, while a resolution and an amendment and a motion to commit are pending, the previous question is ordered on the series of questions, and the vote has been taken and lost on the motion to commit, it is in order to lay on the table the resolution, which carries with it the adhering amendment.

http://www.rulesonline.com/start.html#rror--02.htm

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

Ahm, I think it is not going anywhere.