Sort of.

Tune into the live coverage of the Senate to catch the drama.

In a nutshell, here is what's happening:

The Senate has a much weaker definition of what constitutes an earmark (which would exempt 95% of them from disclosure requirements). Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) figured it would be reasonable to offer the strong House-passed earmark definition as an amendment to the Senate package. How hard could it be to get Senate Democrats to agree with Nancy Pelosi, right?

Well, not so much. Democrats tried to kill the DeMint amendment, but failed. Ever since, they've been scrambling to twist enough arms and find enough parliamentary delays to whip their Members into shape.

As a Senate staffer said, "Senate Dem Leaders are twisting arms and defying Senate precedent in order to reverse an earmark reform vote that was based on Nancy Pelosi’s proposal."

Behold, the "most ethical Congress ever."

*UPDATE 4:49pm* Reid says the Senate earmark definition is better. If you want to have tons of undisclosed earmarks, sure.

Senator DeMint is now speaking. He makes a very apt comparison with the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit vote, where House leaders held the vote open for hours in order to twist arms. Senate Democrats are now using other tactics to achieve the same result; changing a vote total that they don't like.

*UPDATE 5:40pm* Apparently, Democrats are now negotiating with DeMint's office on the matter. No word yet as to what exactly that means, so stay tuned.

*UPDATE 6:10pm* No more roll-call votes tonight. Tune in tomorrow to see whether the Democrats will shun real earmark reform .