Posted on 04/04/2005 8:26:56 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
Since "Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.", I and others think it's a good idea to centralize what the goes on in the Senate (or House).
So if you see something happening on the Senate/House floor and you don't want to start a new thread to ask if anyone else just heard what you heard, you can leave a short note on who said what and about what and I'll try and find it the next day in THE RECORD. Or if you see a thread that pertains to the Senate, House, or pretty much any GOV'T agency please link your thread here.
If you have any suggestions for this thread please feel free to let me know.
Here's a few helpful links.
C-SPAN what a great thing. Where you can watch or listen live to most Government happenings.
C-SPAN 1 carries the HOUSE.
C-SPAN 2 carries the SENATE.
C-SPAN 3 (most places web only) carries a variety of committee meetings live or other past programming.
OR FEDNET has online feed also.
A great thing about our Government is they make it really easy for the public to research what the Politicians are doing and saying (on the floor anyway).
THOMAS where you can see a RECORD of what Congress is doing each day. You can also search/read a verbatim text of what each Congressmen/women or Senator has said on the floor or submitted 'for the record.' [This is where the real juicy stuff can be found.]
Also found at Thomas are Monthly Calendars for the Senate Majority and Senate Minority
And Monthly Calendars for the House Majority and Roll Call Votes can be found here.
THE WAR DEPARTMENT (aka The Dept. of Defense)
You can express doubts...doesn't mean you won't go along..
ken---lets hope their "doubts" are gone by the time the vote happens---
BTW, I too, just saw the irritating Sen. Nelson's little speech---it is so funny how these dem senators are SO upset that the party in the MAJORITY should be able to vote for things and only need a majority vote--where is there a law that says that no matter what party is in the majority, no vote can happen unless some members of the minority ALSO vote for it!!! It is so ridiculous, but none of the reporters or other GOP senators have pointed out that fact---the majority, if they vote the same way SHOULD win.
BTW, I noticed on all of the Sunday talks shows yesterday and then again in Nelson's speech that the new "talking point catch phrase of the day" is - ABUSE OF POWER.
Every single dem in the last couple of days has worked that comment in to their rhetoric---gag---
Seems to me that there is NO way to stop this now, unless the Dems cave completely. I think they miscalculated..colossally..like they did with the Wellstone Memorial..they never thought the GOP would have the stones to do it.No way Frist can back down, for two reasons...if he wants to have any hope in 2008, and if he did so, he might as well tell President Bush to ask Schumer to pick the next SC justice..
Senator Kyl was terrific---I am so glad he spoke after Nelson--
I have a question--the judiciary committee only has what, 22 members or so? With only that few members, there is NO WAY that all 50 states would be represented, right?
So, if these nominees do not get out of committee to an up-or-down vote in the Senate, then a hugh porportion of Americans WILL NOT have the chance, through representation, to have their votes re: judicial appointments counted. If John Cornyn was not on that committee, my vote for Senator AND President would give me NO say in the judiciary in my district or my Supreme Court--
Why doesn't some of the senators that are NOT on the judiciary committee and perhaps have no Senate representation on that committee, get up and say something about that---that their constituents are not being well served in one of the most important functions the the Senate and the Senate ONLY have responsiblity for?
BTW, no wonder Dick Cheney used the "F" word at Patrick Leahy, he is a total a$$hole!!!
Jeff Sessions in my hero---everytime I hear him speak, I like him more and more---
He speaks so clearly and in "plain speak", instead of legalese---he is also against the LOST treaty bill--as am I.
Unfortunately, he doesn't have a big enough TV presence, so no one prolly knows of him unless they live in Alabama or watch c-span 2!
When did an up or down vote in the Senate become an Abuse of Power??
He's one of my favorites also !!!
Thank you ken, for lettings us know about Carl Cameron's report on Bolton---I just hope it is true--I can believe that Dodds asked for more time---they are desperate---
Can you guys believe the hand-wringing and crying these Senators are doing about needing illegal immigrants for their farms---
I think they need to take their problems to the President and the Committee that Cornyn is chairing to make up a stand alone Immigration Reform Bill--
I saw Kennedy talking about Craig's amendment today--sorry, anything that Kennedy is FOR, I am against---I learned the hardest lesson on NCLB--he was supposed to help Bush--bah!
Talk about what goes around, etc..the Dems refused to confirm Sessions for the Federal Court, remember...so..he beat them at their own game
Paybacks is hell!!!!
The Senate convened at 1:00 p.m. and adjourned at 7:41 p.m. One record vote was taken.
9:45 a.m.: Convene and resume consideration of H.R. 1268, the Iraq/Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriations bill.
Foreign Relations Committee: Bolton Vote @ 2:15(est) C-span3.
Oh, shoot. I won't be home for that vote.
ping
Will be watching.
8 . CHANGING SENATE RULES -- (Senate - April 18, 2005)
Sen KYL:
[snip]
Some people have called this the nuclear option because they threatened to blow the Senate up if we try to return to the traditional rule of an up-or-down vote in the Senate. That is a very unfortunate name and a very unfortunate threat. No one should be threatening to go nuclear or blow the place up or prevent the Senate from doing its business. Our constituents sent us here for a reason, to get work done, to pass a budget, to pass the appropriations bill, to pass the bill that is before the Senate right now, the supplemental appropriations bill that will literally fund our troops' effort in Afghanistan and Iraq, to pass an energy bill, to pass a defense authorization bill, all of the other important things they want us to do here.
Yet we have some colleagues suggesting, if they do not get their way on these judges, like a school-yard bully who has a call go against him by the referee and picks up his ball and goes home so the rest of the kids cannot play.
Is that the threat here; pick up your ball and go home so the rest of us cannot do the business we were sent here to do?
Let me make one final prediction. Last time we met as members of the Judiciary Committee, we could not get a quorum to do business. Not one member of the minority party showed up. We have to have at least one for a quorum. This was not the last meeting but the penultimate meeting. They said there were three members going to the funeral of the Pope; 3 out of 9. I predict, at another meeting on Thursday--and we need to pass the judges out to consider them on the floor--they will not give a quorum then, they will not show up or, if they do show up, they filibuster it so we cannot get the judges adopted. I predict right now the judges that are on the agenda for that meeting this coming week will not be passed out. They might pass out one or two, but they are not going to allow us to pass all of those judges so they can be considered by the full Senate.
It was Members of the minority party who complained, while Republicans never filibustered, they did keep some of President Clinton's judicial nominees bottled up in committee. We will see whether they are willing to pass these nominees--I think there are 6 or 7 pending--we will see whether or not they are willing to show up for the meeting so there is a quorum and enabling the committee to pass them out to the full body so we can debate the nominees or whether they talk and talk and talk until the meeting has to end, no one else is around, and we no longer have a quorum or they simply do not show up for a quorum.
We will see what they do. I predict right now my colleagues are not going to allow us to get those judges to the Senate so we can begin the debate and the consideration of whether they should be confirmed. That will be a real shame and, again, a violation of what this Senate has always done in the past, even when we did not particularly think a nominee should receive an affirmative vote on the floor. I believe Clarence Thomas was in this situation. The committee passed him to the Senate to see what the full body would do to give its advice and consent which is what the Constitution calls upon us to do.
I close by urging my colleagues not to confuse this discussion with erroneous information or talk about things
[Page: S3773]
that are in a history that never was but, rather, to approach it on the basis of moving forward, in a bipartisan way, to fill our constitutional responsibilities to grant these judges an up-or-down vote by our advice and consent so we can put people on the court in these very important positions to serve the American people.
ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2005 -- (Senate - April 18, 2005)
[Page: S3862] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, April 19. I further ask consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 1268, the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill; provided that the time until 11:45 be divided with Senator Chambliss in control of one-half of the time and the other half divided equally between Senators CRAIG and KENNEDY; provided further that at 11:45 a.m. the Senate proceed to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Chambliss amendment, as provided under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from
[Page: S3863] GPO's PDF
12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party luncheons.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
are we gonna do a live thread....we need to, IMHPO, because lots don't have easy access to C-span 3..
Did you just hear what I heard regarding the Bolton vote---
When Frist requested unanimous request consent for committee to meet today (usually a pro forma request) there was ONE objection--guess which one? Yep, the Foreign Relations Committee--
Frist said something like, if there is an objection then we will have to recess and then nothing will get done, especially this emergency supplemental bill and that would be a shame---
SO, it looks like Dodd is gonna do what he threatened yesterday--and that was to hold up Bolton's hearing today---
Isn't it coincidental also, that with a POPE being elected, the news won't even prolly report this---do once again, the dems will get away with obstructionism!!!!!!
You're kidding me! I missed it, had to go to lunch.
What a bunch of cry babies.
What happened on the cloture vote on the Chambliss amendment?
Good point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.