Filibuster debate delays Senate vote on Sandy aid
WASHINGTON — Senate action on $50.5 billion in emergency aid for victims of Hurricane Sandy was indefinitely delayed on Tuesday because of ongoing negotiations over filibuster rules.
Democrats and Republicans have not yet agreed on limiting the use of filibusters, which require 60 votes to move bills to a final vote and are frequently blamed for allowing partisan gridlock to overtake the Senate.
Republicans want to conclude the negotiations before the Sandy aid legislation reaches the floor.
The aid bill the Senate plans to vote on is expected to be the same legislation the House passed Jan. 15. Both chambers also voted Jan. 4 to approve $9.7 billion to help pay flood insurance claims related to the Oct. 29 storm.
The Senate voted last year to approve $60.4 billion in aid for Sandy victims, but that vote was nullified when the 113th Congress took office.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., met Tuesday with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to discuss clearing the Sandy aid legislation.
“That's going to be our first item of business,” Reid said. “We are going to do that. It's long overdue and I am hopeful and cautiously optimistic we can do something on that real soon.”
Senate Democrats are holding open the option of bringing the Sandy aid to the floor even if negotiations over filibuster rules aren't concluded. But they decided to hold back for at least a day or two in hopes of avoiding acrimony.
Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey was unsure exactly when the Senate vote on the Sandy aid would be held, but he expects it to pass.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Judge orders W.Va. agency to release pollution data
- Man caught jumping White House fence
- 4 private security guards convicted
- Coast Guard to seek billions to protect Arctic interests
- Security at Capitol questioned
- 8 arrested in post-game riots in Morgantown
- North Korean detainee reunites with family in Ohio
- Coburn’s final ‘Wastebook’ tallies $25B in what he considers ‘pork’
- Social Security recipients to get increase in benefits
- Personal use of Secret Service agents on staffer’s behalf draws investigaton
- Academic scandal at University of North Carolina bigger than previously reported