9/22/12 Outlook Print Message1/2https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=8fe4c011-04c0-11e2-b344-002264c20b8…
RE: WPEA Status Report
(email@example.com)Sent:Sat 9/22/12 10:19 AMTo:Shanna Devine (firstname.lastname@example.org); email@example.com(firstname.lastname@example.org); email@example.com (firstname.lastname@example.org); email@example.com(firstname.lastname@example.org)
Unless the MISC Steering Committee knows something thatNBCNewsandPresident Obamado not,
I don't think the sentence, "
The House is coming back in on Tuesday
is factually accurate (thusdefying one of MISC's listserv guidelines). Further, the House adjourned until after the electionyesterday at 12:12pm, a good 6 hours before the note below was sent.Which begs the question, what else is inaccurate about this status report?
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:03:12 -0400Subject: WPEA Status ReportFrom: email@example.com
Dear MISC Members,
this note from the MISC Steering Committee is to give a WPEA status report. The bill was scheduled for unanimous consent approval today, but Speaker Boehner decided not to let anylegislation be enacted by UC. The House is coming back in on Tuesday, and the Speaker’s office has toldcongressional staff that they want to get the job done. Hill staff told us they are viewing the development as adelay, not a defeat. There have been rumors about back room opposition, and about the Speaker’sresponse. We need to get hard information before giving a detailed report, but you will receive one when weknow. We’re particularly frustrated, because the Senate floor leaders already had obtained the clearancesfor unanimous consent approval there, if the House had finished. We have been told definitely, without qualifier by staff working on the bill that the core consensus is over language that cannot be changed. Some of those conclusions came both from Republican and Democraticoffices that we had convinced to keep pushing for conceptual, and fine tuning amendments on issues likeretroactivity. They agreed, argued and submitted amendments/language, and all hit the wall. Since thelanguage is even more carved in stone now, a bottom line assessment is worth considering for the bill thatwas on the verge of approval.We’re disappointed that the final version of S. 743 did not include court access, national security rights andclassified whistleblowing disclosures to Congress. We tried repeatedly to eliminate uncertainty by locking inU.S. Code language for the technical amendments like retroactivity. Numerous offices had strong legislativehistory floor statements ready to go on that and other issues where it could make a difference.