Dodd Staff: Live Video Chat on "Feingold-Reid-Dodd"

The Amendment (0.00 / 0)

The Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment requires that we begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 120 days of enactment and mandates that all combat forces be redeployed by March 31, 2008.

.::Hold Fast::.

---

by: Matt Browner Hamlin @ Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:40:00 AM CDT

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

I was on the call discussing this yesterday. I support the amendment.

Areas that many of us find confusing, which would benefit form a clear discussion, include:

• What are the parliamentary prospects for the FRD amendment to the water bill?
  
• What are the prospects for including the FRD language in the Iraq Supplemental?
  
• In either the water bill or the Iraqi supplemental, Bush has pledged to veto any such restrictions. Any comment on the next steps, if he does? For example, "short leash" funding?
  
• What is Senator Dodd's view of Sen. Levin's amendment that simply lets Bush waive any deployment restrictions?
  
• FRD allows some troops to stay for training and for "anti-terrorist activities." If I trusted the Bush administration that might seem reasonable. What controls are there to ensure that "policing a civil war" is not continued past April 2008 under the guise of "anti-terrorist activities"?
  
• Thanks for clarifying that this would block permanent bases. There was some confusion on that.
  

---

by: elwood @ Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:47:58 AM CDT

we're live (4.00 / 1)

Thanks for the questions - answers coming shortly!

.::Hold Fast::.

---

by: Matt Browner Hamlin @ Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:06:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The answers I heard: (0.00 / 0)

1. Prospects for FRD on the water bill: We probably don't have the 60 vottes to force cloture.
   
2. FRD in the Supplemental: That would be great, but the Supplemental won't go to the floor before Conference, so there's no chance to add it.
   
3. Next step after veto: I don't believe that was covered (and I'm not sure it's smart for Senators to 'answer hyoptheticals' on that).
   
4. The Levin Amendment: Dodd opposes, and Levin withdrew it during the call.
   
5. "Terrorist activities" as loophole: it will not be, but no specifics.
   

---

by: elwood @ Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:31:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for coming. We're working on finalizing the video and putting it back up for you to see if you missed the live broadcast.

.::Hold Fast::.

---

by: Matt Browner Hamlin @ Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:49:43 AM CDT

29?!!!??!!! (0.00 / 0)

The results were shocking to me. Only 29 Democrats voted to even let this amendment get an up or down vote.

Here's who voted for:

Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

And here's Dems who voted against.

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
 

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:38:57 AM CDT

The importance of the vote (0.00 / 0)

Over the past couple of days, having learned the way the Iraq funding will be negotiated in conference committee with only a skeleton bill sent from the Senate, the importance of Reid-Feingold-Dodd has become more evident. A strong showing on RFD would have sent the Senate to the bargaining table with instructions on how much the Senate would stand behind firm action.

The message here was: the Senate won't.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:47:20 AM CDT

It might mean that (0.00 / 0)

But it also might mean that the caucus is still working out its strategy.

That said, I do agree they should have brought it to a floor vote. And I'm not defending that, but maybe they detected GOP enthusiasm for having the vote, a "Defeatocrats" ploy of some sort.

---

by: JimC @ Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:01:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My guess (0.00 / 0)

Reid is trying to keep the Senators who want strong action in Iraq on board for something less dramatic. The vote was a trade for support of milder language in the supplemental -- maybe a five-month leash.

---

by: elwood @ Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:33:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]