Hello??
Coo-Coo!
Posted on 03/01/2005 4:50:59 AM PST 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.
Congress.org <<< Good resource
THE WAR DEPARTMENT (aka The Dept. of Defense)
Cornyn is my senator and I have e-mailed him almost every month about something---he always answers with a snail mail letter--not a form letter, either!!!
I am becoming a hugh fan of his---I just wish he had more influence with Bush on a couple of things, like immigration. I also wish he would do more of what he is doing right now--
Slapping down the dems that contradict there own selves, constantly--
You notice he does is without the hyperbole of Kennedy, Byrd, Reid, Durbin, et al?
Oh sarn I missed it .. I had the volume down
Hello?
Hello??
I saw Santorum on the Senate floor yesterday addressing the minimum wage amendment that Kennedy was speaking of (for the thousandth time)---
Santorum told Kennedy that the bankruptcy bill in the wrong bill to address minimum wage---but that they would be debating welfare reform later in the session, and maybe that bill would be better for that subject--
Therefore, I don't understand why he would propose an amendment on Monday, attached to the bankruptcy bill---
BTW, how many people will be put on unemployment because of the minimum wage going up? Prolly a bunch--and it will cause some business to cut health care benefits, so hm...
But of course Kennedy doesn't care because he gets his raise every year and can come on the Senate floor and yell and turn purple screaming about the poor, poor people on minimum wage---I bet he wouldn't even shake hands with a person if he knew he/she only earned minimum wage!!!
SOCIAL SECURITY -- (Senate - March 03, 2005)
[Page: S1960] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I have a brief statement on an issue that is receiving a lot of attention, a lot of work, and a lot of engagement, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives, by the President of the United States and, indeed, all across America. It is on Social Security.
When the 109th Congress convened, I stated that our mission in this Congress over the next 2 years would be to govern with meaningful solutions. Working together, both sides of the aisle, we made a fast start, very effective start, confirming the President's Cabinet and enacting, 2 weeks ago, class action legislation. We are making good progress on the bankruptcy legislation, as I just mentioned, and very soon we will be turning our attention to writing the Government's spending blueprint for the coming year; that is, governing with meaningful solutions.
Congress, at the same time that activity is going on in the Chamber, is tackling many problems and will be tackling these problems in the weeks and months ahead, including Social Security, which we are engaged on in this body every day, whether it is working in our own caucuses or conference or in committees.
Social Security, a critically important, great program which does serve as the cornerstone of support for senior citizens, now faces challenges that threaten its long-term stability and well-being. The facts are there. The facts are crystal clear. They are grounded in demographics that were defined two generations ago. Those demographics cannot be changed.
What the facts lead to is that in 3 years, the baby
boomers arrive on the Social Security rolls. That will begin an almost 30-year period where we will have a doubling of the number of seniors compared to what it is today--up to 77 million Americans who will begin to collect those Social Security benefits.
Second, we all know we have fewer and fewer workers paying into the system, also driven by demographics. Forty years ago we had 16 people paying in for every retiree. Today we have three people paying in for every retiree. In 20 or 30 years, we will only have two paying into the system. Those facts cannot be changed.
With this President, this Congress, the 109th Congress, is facing this challenge. The challenge is to fix Social Security for seniors and for near-retirees and for that next generation. We need to do it, and we will do it this year--this year--and not next year. We are working toward that goal.
In just the past 2 months, the majority has worked aggressively and thoroughly to fully understand the nature of the problem. We have worked hard to begin to engage the American people in a dialog about the program. In town meetings all across the country, we have put some of the best minds at work to create solutions. That activity is underway.
We talked about this repeatedly in our own conferences. We have interacted with administration officials. We have interacted with leading experts on the Social Security system. Our Members are hard at work to fix the underlying problems. That is the heart of the challenge in this 70-year-old program we will address this year.
So far, I report to the Senate and my colleagues that together with the President we agree that retirees and near-retirees who entered the system before the scope of this problem became so large will not see benefit changes. The retirees or near-retirees will see no benefit changes.
Second, together with the President, we agree that we must harness the power of the market and give younger Americans the choice--
it is voluntary--to give them the choice of personal retirement accounts whose rate of growth--therefore, we know, ultimately, the rate of benefits--will grow faster than traditional Social Security.
Third, together, with the President, we agree that all ideas should be on the table. It is too early for people to be drawing rigid lines in the sand. Thus, we encourage people to continue the discussion, the debate, the understanding of the issue, and the nature of the problem.
Fourth, together, with the President, we agree that we should act this year and not put it off to the future.
For those who insist there is no problem, I simply say, look at the facts. As people increasingly look at the facts--and we are seeing the response around the country--people see the problem is real, that it is significant, and that it is growing.
For those who say we do not need any action, well, if you have a problem that is growing, it is much easier to act now, to take some medicine to cure the problem, than to have some radical surgery in the future.
We need to test the ideas with regard to the scope of the problem and the ideas for solutions in that crucible of public debate. We need to put them to a vote. We must let the people ultimately judge.
I say all this so people will know that our majority is hard at work, every day, on this vital issue. In consultation with the administration and the House of Representatives, we will continue to bring before the Senate meaningful solutions that will make a difference in the lives of our seniors. The assurances of Social Security should be guaranteed. To be able to guarantee those assurances, we must diagnose the problem, and then we must act. We must govern with meaningful solutions, and that is exactly what this Congress will do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Then why put it on?
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I understand I only have a couple of minutes, so I will be very brief. I want to speak on the issue of minimum wage. I know the Senator from Massachusetts has offered this amendment on the minimum wage to this package. I will be opposing the Kennedy amendment and will be offering an alternate to this amendment. But let me explain first why I oppose the Kennedy amendment.
First, it doesn't belong on this bill. Even the amendment I will offer as an alternative does not belong on the bill. I have spoken to Senator Kennedy and others about what I believe is the appropriate place for this discussion. That is the welfare reform bill. It will be a bill that will come here and have a lot of amendments and it focuses on how we help those who are transitioning from welfare to work, how we help them and give them the support they need to be able to have work that pays well enough for them to get out of poverty. I think this discussion fits best, and I would argue has the better chance of actually ending up in a final bill and being sent to the President, on the welfare bill as opposed to here, which I think everyone recognizes is a bill that has been worked on for years and years and years.
We have a bill that has bipartisan support, with the hope of trying to get this to the President at a propitious time. So I would make the argument, No. 1, first and foremost I would oppose the Kennedy amendment on that ground.
Second, I suggest----
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question on that part?
Mr. SANTORUM. I only have about 1 minute and I am happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for a brief question.
Mr. KENNEDY. I offered the amendment on the TANF bill last year and the bill was pulled because it was offered as an amendment. So that is part of our frustration.
Mr. SANTORUM. I respect the Senator from Massachusetts. I think there is a little different environment. I think there is a broad group who will deal with the reauthorization of welfare and deal with that and get a bill passed and sent to Congress this year, and you will certainly have my support trying to get that done in a fashion that I believe reinstates work requirements, which have fallen off because of the drop in the welfare rolls across America.
The second reason I oppose the Kennedy amendment is because the increase is too dramatic at this point. We are talking about an over $2 increase, over a 40-percent increase in the minimum wage. While I do support a modest proposal, something about half that amount, I think that is the wise thing to do in this economy, which is not to put a jolt of that nature into what is already a concern about inflation. To be able to put that kind of minimum wage increase in I think would fuel inflationary fears. It would have strong negative repercussions in our economy, broadly.
While I do understand the need now that it has been almost 8 years without a minimum wage increase, I think what I will be offering is a modest one that comports with and will fit within this economy. We do some things to address the issue of small businesses, which the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts does not do.
We don't want to disproportionally affect those poor communities, or hurt the small business neighborhood store or cleaners or whatever the case may be that is trying to make ends meet by putting this kind of increased cost on them as high as the Kennedy amendment would be, or even as high as what I would suggest, without some sort of relief to compensate very small businesses. I think that would be unwise and it would hurt the community. We want to help by providing more resources. Increasing the minimum wage does not help those small businesses in that community. I think it would have a bad, overall negative effect on the very poor communities of our society.
I see my time is up. I yield the floor.
Thank you for posting that speech from Santorum---
I remember seeing Kennedy's speech and he was screaming that the minimum wage hadn't been raised in 8 years (maybe it is time for a small raise) but, he said, I (kennedy) have and 5 raises, 5 raises since then...
I am sure the "poor" people that Kennedy purports to speak for, were so thrilled to hear him really "cry" about his raises!!!
What an idiot---
Next meeting: Monday, Mar 7, 2005
2:00 p.m.: Convene and resume consideration of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.
Frist appears to be talking about the voting rights march over the Edmund Pettis bridge, but I will listen to anything to escape Martha Stewart coverage. I have nothing against her. I just don't need to know this much about her.
LOL!
Uncle Ted speaking
Hello! Hello!
Hello?
Hello??
Hey Teddy .. stop taxing up so much and maybe we would have to work longer
grrr
up = us
I don't know----Martha Stewart, Ted Kennedy, Martha, Ted..hm....
Not much of a choice between the two---
I have to say that I turned to Fox News a few minutes ago and saw Martha's talk to her minions and could not believe how INarticulate she really is---also she had a guy behind her in view the whole time that had on OVERALLS!!!
Gotta tell you---put ole Teddy in overalls and we might have a real competition for "joke of the day"
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.