For the first time EVER, a climate bill made it out of a congressional committee yesterday and is heading to a full House vote. Unfortunately the American Clean Energy and Security Act was badly weakened in the process, to the point that some of the most principled environmental organizations are opposing it. At Campus Progress we are still hopeful that it will be strengthened on its way to the President's desk, but it won't happen without your continued engagement. 

It is still early to declare victory, but take some time to celebrate for this historic occasion. This could not have happened without all of you who took action in your communities. From PowerVote to PowerShift, from organizing town halls during the recess to clocking in thousands of phone calls from constituents, we managed to turn two 'Expected No' votes into yesses. Now let's keep this up and make sure that the final bill will be a much stronger, bolder and more just one.   

Check out the Funding our Future blog for news about the bill's progress, resources and action opportunities and tell everyone you know that our climate legislation will be hijacked by King Coal if we don't step up to protect it. 

In response to a lot of questions I've been getting on exactly what a "Conference Report" or " Motion to recommit with instructions" is, I've decided that I should use my pathetic mastery of CSPAN lingo to educate the masses. Here is a list of parliamentary procedures in the United States Congress, complete with my real definition.

Senate

Filibuster: A chance for Southern conservatives to delay a Civil Rights Bill, or neo-cons to stop an anti-war measure from passing. Although, when you're in the minority, it can be defined as the "Thank ****ing God" rule. Unlike what you see in some movies, and what they tell you in history classes, filibusters don't consist of some old guy reading a phone book for 24 hours anymore. Now, someone will file a "cloture" (see below) motion to cut off debate, which needs 60 votes to pass. Essentially, this means that any controversial legislation in the Senate needs 60 votes, which makes things impossible to enact.

Cloture: The 60 vote threshold needed to end debate. That is why, even though a party may be in the "majority," it has very little power unless it can gather 60 votes. This rule is very nice though when you're in the minority, so we can stop things like the Flag Burning Amendment. 

Motion to proceed to the motion to invoke cloture: Yeah, that really is the name for things people could be voting on.

Tabling: To table a bill or an amendment means to kill it by majority vote. So when Jim DeMint proposes that we take every dollar out of the Federal Government, we can say "shut up."

Motion to Instruct the Sargent-at-arms: This is one of my favorites. A Majority leader can invoke this rare procedure by majority vote, which would require the sargent-at-arms to physically bring people to the chamber. And you think CSPAN is NOT entertaining? 

President Pro Tempore: The Vice President of the United States is constitutionally supposed to preside over the Senate, but he is too busy planning the destruction of the world. Therefore, the duty is given to the President Pro Tempore. This is usually the senior Senator from the majority party, (currently Robert Byrd of West Virginia). However, this guy is usually too frail or lazy to perform the duty himself, so he hands it off to Freshman Senators as a "hazing" ritual. Therefore, freshman in the majority party have to sit and preside over the debate (really they're probably doing crossword puzzles).

Roll Call Vote: Senators, contrary to conventional wisdom, don't all come to the floor for the vote immediately. Usually, the clerk will read all of their names to an empty chamber, and then the Senators will lazily meander to the floor when they are done with their donut. They go up to the desk and announce their vote, before immediately going back to talk with lobbyists about that special project in their state. Therefore, a process that should take a few minutes, takes a freaking half hour.  

House of Representatives

"My good friend, the gentleman from Missouri": That ***hole across the aisle.  

Motion to Recommit with Instructions: Usually, the House Minority can't do anything, because the rule for debating a bill is agreed to by majority vote. They are entitled to a motion to recommit, which is basically a way to add something to the bill that will either alter its meaning completely, or kill it. For example, on a bill to give Voting Rights to DC, Conservatives offered a motion to recommit that would remove DC's handgun bill. Usually these things don't pass, except when some moderates feel like they need to vote for it to save face in their district. 

Speaker of the House: The Speaker of the House usually doesn't preside over the House during normal debates. She's probably too busy eating Ghiradelli Chocolates. Therefore, other House members from the Majority party get the priviledge of shutting people up, and calling on them to speak.

House and Senate:

Conference Committee: Usually, the House and the Senate pass different versions of the same bill. Probably the House's version is more extreme (as the founders intended) and the Senate has served as a cooling saucer. Thus, they must reconcile a bill in "Conference." These conferences consist of members of both parties in proportion to their membership in each chamber. Once they hammer out a compromise, both chambers vote on the final bill, called the "Conference Report." Of course, none of this will happen if one Senator prevents it. (I'm looking at you again, Jim DeMint)

Parliamentary Inquiry: A way to guise a political statement in the form of asking a question about procedure.

Point of Order: Making a point that the rules of the chamber are being broken. The presiding officer will decide if the point is valid (obviously they side with their own party, the majority). The chamber than votes on the ruling of the chair. The majority wins the vote, and members contemplate why they have wasted valuable time. 

I hope this is helpful to those of you who are interested in politics, or are at least interested in a "CSPAN Drinking Game" 

Today the House passed a resolution to give the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to elect a voting member in the House of Representatives.  The bill would also give Utah an additonal at-large House seat, which was denied after the 2000 Census failed to count the several thousand Mormon Missionaries serving abroad.  If it is approved and signed by the President, the bill would for the first time, give Citizens of the Democratic leaning District of Columbia a voting member in Congress, and give Republican leaning Utah an extra seat increasing the size of the House of Representatives from 435 to 437.

The bill was first introduced in March, but Democrats withdrew the bill after an attempt by Republicans to add an amendment which would have lifted a ban on simiautomatic handguns in the District of Columbia.   The bill was re-introduced this week with rules to prevent Republicans from using parliamentary proceedure to hold the bill hostage at gunpoint (figuratively speaking).

After much wrangling and arguing over Constitutional issues centering around Washington D.C.'s status as a federal district rather than a state, the bill passed 241-177.  These Constitutional arguements have some measure of validity.  It is possible that the bill may end up in the Judicial system should it be passed by the Senate and signed by the President.  Its passage in the Senate is uncertain, and already Republican leader Mitch McConnell has stated that he will use the filibuster to block its passage in the Senate.  President Bush meanwhile has stated that if the bill arrives on his desk he will Veto it (along with nearly a dozen other pending bills). 

A bill providing supplemental funding for the Iraq War passed in the House today, with a Democratic proposal attached that would have all American troops redployed from Iraq by 2008. While there was a threat that liberals who saw the bill as too weak would jump ship, the vote ended up being almost on party lines, splitting 218-212-1-3. 14 Democrats still voted in opposition, however, and 2 Republicans voted in favor. Here's a rundown of who cast these irregular votes and why they did it:

Republicans who voted for the supplemental:

Walter Jones (North Carolina 3rd) He claims that rising casualties forced him to follow his conscience; pretty good for someone in a conservative district. Link

Wayne Gilchrest (Maryland 1st) He first defected earlier this year on the nonbinding resolution and is pushing a diplomatic alternative to the surge. Link

Democrats who voted against the supplemental:

Lincoln Davis (Tennessee 4th) He is a member of the Blue Dog coalition and consistently votes with Republicans on everything, understandable for a southern representative. Outside of the normal ideological grounds, Davis opposes the bill because of earmarks. Link

John Barrow (Georgia 12th) He is a solid conservative Blue Dog who stood his ground, even when Democrats tried to buy him off $3.7 billion in Agricultural Assistance in the bill. You may not agree with him, but you have to respect his dedication to his ideas. Link  

Dan Boren (Oklahoma 2nd) A Blue Dog claims to have made up his mind after visiting Iraq just last week. Link

Dennis Kucinich (ohio 10th) Enough said. Link

Barbara Lee (California 9th) One of the four main liberals who lead opposition to the bill from the left. She pledged to support the supplemental yesterday, but most likely swung back to the opposition when it was clear that the bill would pass. Link

John Lewis (Georgia 5th) Unexpected for a Georgia Democrat, Lewis opposes the bill from the left. From a conservative district and a member of the leadership whip team, it was pretty courageous of him to vote his conscience on this one. Link

Gene Marshall (Mississippi 8th) He is a Democrat facing a difficult reelection in a conservative district. it’s unclear if he actually believes in his vote or if he only voted no for political gain. Link

Jim Matheson (Utah 2nd) He is also a Blue Dog who consistently votes with Republicans on security issues. Link

Michael McNulty (New York 21st) Opposed to the bill from the left, he wants troop withdrawal as soon as possible. Link

Gene Taylor (Mississippi 4th) A Blue Dog who votes conservative on national security. One of the biggest critics of the administration’s failure to provide adequate equipment to the soldiers, Taylor believes in his ideas and not simply the conservative talking points. Link

Maxine Waters (California 35th) Also on of the four liberal leaders on the issue who agreed to stop encouraging others to vote against the bill as a concession to the caucus on Thursday. Link

Diana Watson (California 33rd) Another one of the four liberal leaders, she also accommodated Pelosi and stopped lobbying against the bill. Link

Lynn Woolsey (California 8th) The last of the four liberal anti-war leaders, she followed Watson and Waters in their pledge to stop active lobbying while personally voted against the bill. Link

Michael Michaud (Maine 2nd) Opposed the bill from the left, he was always against the Iraq War and he even voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001. Link 

Voting “Present” (basically an abstention):

Democrat Pete Stark (California 13th) Opposed from the left, Stark often uses the "present" vote as a way to protest the discussion altogether. While the exact motives are unclear, it may be related to the fact that his district is pretty conservative. 

Not Voting:

Democrat Paul Kanjorski (Pennsylvania 11th) He just had triple bypass surgery and is recovering. Link

Democrat Mel Watt (North Carolina 12th) He accidentally missed the vote and said afterwards that he would have voted for the bill. 

Republican Jo Ann Davis (Virginia 1st) She is recovering from surgery for a ruptured ureter; she was also diagnosed with breast cancer. Link