On Wednesday, Nov. 18, Sen. Robert Byrd will become the longest-serving member of Congress in history.

He will break the record of Carl Hayden, an Arizona Democrat, who spent 20,773 days in office -- Hayden served in the House from 1912 to 1927 and the Senate from 1927 to 1969.

Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia, was first elected to the House in 1952. Six years later he won his initial Senate race. He won a ninth full Senate term in 2006 -- something no one else has ever accomplished. Here's more, according to CQ's Kathleen Hunter:

He has cast more votes and held more leadership positions -- including majority leader, minority leader, president pro tempore, majority whip and secretary of the majority -- than any other senator.

Byrds turns 92 years old on Nov. 20.

UPDATE: For more on Arizona's Carl Hayden, whose record is about to be eclipsed, check out this post by NPR's Mark Memmott in his The Two Way blog.

It was a mostly party-line vote that rebuked Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) on the floor of the House yesterday. But 12 Democrats voted against the resolution, and seven Republicans voted in favor. (Five members, all Democrats, voted present.)

Here are those who broke the mold:

DEMOCRATS VOTING NO (12): Giffords (AZ), Delahunt (MA), Taylor (MS), Hodes (NH), Teague (NM), Arcuri (NY), Hinchey (NY), Maffei (NY), Massa (NY), Kucinich (OH), McDermott (WA), Moore (WI).

REPUBLICANS VOTING YES (7): Flake (AZ), Rohrabacher (CA), Cao (LA), Emerson (MO), Jones (NC), Inglis (SC), Petri (WI).

Wilson's SC GOP colleague voted yes. Congressional Quarterly's Jonathan Allen calls the vote in favor of the resolution a "bold political move" for Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), who is already facing four challengers in next June's GOP primary and who claim "he isn't conservative enough" for the district.

UPDATE: An apology. There is a widespread, and legitimate, debate on whether race is a factor, or even the main factor, in the opposition to President Obama. The debate continues in the wake of Joe Wilson's "You lie" outburst on the floor of the House.

Today, in the Political Junkie segment on NPR's Talk of the Nation, there were several callers from South Carolina who weighed in on the motive behind Wilson's comment. One person pointed out that Wilson was one of just a handful of state lawmakers who voted to keep the Confederate symbol as part of the state flag. Another pointed out the dressing down Wilson gave Essie Mae Washington, who is Strom Thurmond's biracial daughter, for raising the issue of Thurmond's parentage. It's beyond my pay grade to ascribe racism to people's motives, and I think too many people do it too freely. I did say, somewhat weakly, that perhaps Wilson's motive was simply to defend Thurmond, for whom he previously worked.

I got a scathing note from someone who called my comment "shallow, ill-informed, ahistorical and just plain uninsightful."

Here is my response.

I was trying to make the argument that everything Wilson has done may not necessarily have to do with race, and I still feel that way. But I can see how my answer was seen as insensitive, and I knew it immediately. And I apologize for it.

It was emotional, and predictable, the debate on whether to "disapprove" the outburst of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) during last week's address to Congress by President Obama.

Democrats, who brought the resolution to the floor, argued that Wilson's "You lie!" violated House decorum; Republicans called it a "political stunt." For his part, Wilson said he had apologized to President Obama, that the president "graciously accepted" it, and therefore the issue "should be over."

Democrats have a majority in the House.

The vote was 240-179, with five abstentions. Twelve Democrats voted against the resolution, and seven Republicans voted for it.

The House has begun debating a resolution that disapproves of the outburst of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) during President Obama's address to Congress last week.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Minority Leader John Boehner head up their respective parties.

Here's the language of the House resolution that "disapproves" of the conduct of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) during President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress last week. It is scheduled to be offered by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip James Clyburn.

(Note: The fact that it hasn't come to the floor yet makes some wonder if there are some behind-the-scenes negotiations going on here, such as the possibility of a Wilson apology on the House floor. Wilson has said that he has done all the apologizing he plans to. For the record, Wilson is currently on the House floor.)

RESOLUTION

Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas on September 9, 2009, during the joint session of Congress convened pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 179, the President of the United States, speaking at the invitation of the House and Senate, had his remarks interrupted by the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson; and

Whereas the conduct of the Representative from South Carolina was a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the behavior of the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, during the joint session of Congress held on September 9, 2009.

It looks like there will be a resolution on the floor of the House this afternoon reprimanding Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), he of the "You lie!" outburst during President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress last week.

Wilson's intemperate remark came shortly after Obama stated in his speech that no Democratic health-care proposal would cover illegal immigrants ... a discussion that followed the president denouncing the "lies" some opponents of health-care overhaul were spreading.

Republicans agreed that Wilson's outburst was out of line. Under pressure from party leaders, his office issued an apology that same night, and Wilson himself called the White House to apologize, reaching Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Obama said he accepted the apology.

But Wilson has refused to apologize any further, and that includes on the House floor. And that's why Democrats are offering today's sanction.

Continue reading "Joe Wilson House Resolution Expected This Afternoon" >

A Junkie posting yesterday talked about the defeat in the Senate of a proposed amendment by Sen. John Thune (R-SD) that would allow those with concealed gun permits to carry their guns across state lines, assuming the states they were entering also had a concealed gun-permit law.

In the post I wrote the following: "In a victory for gun-control advocates, the Senate voted in favor of the bill 58-39 -- two short of the 60 votes needed."

For that explanation, I was taken to task -- justifiably -- by Paul Weimer. I reprint his comment here:

No offense, Ken, but this sentence is incomplete and misleading. I know it's a shorthand that has regrettably infected even NPR, but what you mean to say is that the bill did not get the 60 votes for cloture. Its not the same thing as defeating the bill at all. After all, 58 Senators voted for a bill cutting off funding for the F-22 and the bill passed.

Paul, of course, is right. If 58 senators voting to kill the F-22 is a defeat for the fighter plane, why would 58 votes in favor of the Thune amendment be seen as a defeat for the pro-gun forces?

I used Beltway shorthand and failed to explain that the 58 votes were two shy of what the pro-Thune forces needed to beat back a filibuster. So while a clear majority of the Senate did indeed support the measure, it was not enough. And thus, a victory for the gun-control forces.

Two Republicans -- Lugar (IN) and Voinovich (OH) voted against it, along with 35 Democrats and two independents. Every other Republican and 20 Democrats supported it. Here are the 20 Dems who voted to pass the amendment (names in bold are seeking election in 2010):

Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Begich (AK), Bennet (CO), Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Feingold (WI), Hagan (NC), Johnson (SD), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Reid (NV), Tester (MT), Udall (CO), Udall (NM), Warner (VA), and Webb (VA).

The measure by Sen. John Thune (R-SD) that would allow those with concealed gun permits to carry their guns across state lines -- assuming the states they were entering also had a concealed gun permit law -- has been defeated.

In a victory for gun-control advocates, the Senate voted in favor of the bill 58-39 -- two short of the 60 votes needed.

Two Republicans, George Voinovich of Ohio and Dick Lugar of Indiana, voted against the bill.

It's pegged as the Democrats vs. the gun lobby, but of course it's more complicated than that.

Today, at noon, the Senate is expected to take up an amendment by South Dakota Republican John Thune that would allow individuals with permits to carry concealed weapons to carry them across state lines -- though only if the visited state laws allow conceal-and-carry permits.

It's part of the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill, but don't ask me to explain the relevance of having the gun bill attached to it.

Continue reading "Durbin Hoping To Stop Gun Bill, But Reid Is Voting Yes" >

Yesterday's meeting at the White House between hundreds of gay and lesbian leaders and President Obama was history in the making, regardless of the debate over whether the president has fulfilled his promises on the issue or whether he's moved too slowly, etc.

Just compare what happened on Tuesday with what's happened in the past. The other day, Adam Nagourney of the New York Times reminded us about the first time gay leaders were invited to the White House, in March 1977, where "they met a midlevel aide on a Saturday when the press and President Jimmy Carter were nowhere in sight."

Still, there remains a sense of unease in the gay community, as "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is still the law, the Defense of Marriage Act is still on the books, and Obama still says he opposes same-sex marriage.

Of course, it's hard to support same-sex marriage while at the same time you're filing legal briefs on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Continue reading "Gays, Obama, And The 1996 Defense Of Marriage Act" >

You might have done a double-take when you read what happened on the House floor yesterday during a vote on the $106 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The measure passed by a vote of 226 to 202. But it was the "anti-war" Democrats who voted for it, and the "pro-war" Republicans who voted against it.

Of course, this was less a vote about ideology than it was a vote about President Obama. He wanted it passed. And the main reason why the GOP voted against it was the sweetener Obama threw in to woo wavering Democrats -- $5 billion to the International Monetary Fund. Only 32 Democrats voted against the measure -- 19 fewer than a month ago. Republicans, save for five members, all said no to make a point that they had had enough with bailouts.

Here are the 32 Democrats who voted against the bill: Baldwin (WI), Capuano (MA), Conyers (MI), Doggett (TX), Edwards (MD), Ellison (MN), Farr (CA), Filner (CA), Grayson (FL), Grijalva (AZ), Honda (CA), Kaptur (OH), Kucinich (OH), Lee (CA), Lofgren (CA), Massa (NY), McGovern (MA), Michaud (ME), Payne (NJ), Pingree (ME), Polis (CO), Serrano (NY), Shea-Porter (NH), Sherman (CA), Speier (CA), Stark (CA), Tierney (MA), Tsongas (MA), Waters (CA), Watson (CA), Welch (VT), Woolsey (CA).

And here are the five Republicans who voted in favor: Cao (LA), King (NY), Kirk (IL), McHugh (NY), Miller (MI).