Posted on 02/01/2006 6:09:12 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.
THE WAR DEPARTMENT (aka The Dept. of Defense)
See post 214 for the schedule, as announced Friday. The timing on bringing the tax bill up was driven by a House request for a conference. Once the Senate side of the conference is set up, they'll return to the asbestos bill.
The first point of order on the asbestos bill is a point of order as to whether or not the bill is a "budget buster."
I had to do some running around this morning...so didn't get to freep or watch TV..
I turn on my TV, though...and the FIRST thing I hear is Baucus saying that the tax cuts on dividends MUST go..in order to pay for cuts in Medicare...
and just cringed...and given the squishyness of some of the Republicans lately...I just can't assume that this idea won't go anywhere...
Did you miss McClellan's press conference?
"You are one of those eeeevil capitalists :)"
LOL!!! Lord have mercy, I would like being classified with them.
You know what amazes me? I hear some people say so many bad things about capitalists. Those people fail to realize for one second that they might not have the opportunity to say anything about Capitalism if not for those who took the risk to produce something.
Speaking of risk-takers. Just how many providers of Capital lost their butts during the 90s? I have never heard anyone compare the "roaring 90s" to the "roaring 20s". In many ways they parallel to one another. The only differnce is, we didn't have a massive depression after the stock market fell hard.
Many of the people who provided Capital to all those internet companies lost their shirts and more. They are just now making enough on other investments to come back to the Capital markets.
The very people who "rescued" the stock markets are the rich. They are the ones who had the extra money to keep investing, even as the market kept going down. Yes, I realize many pension plans kept investing but at the same time, the rich had as much to do with keeping the markets afloat as onyone or any pension plan.
We "little people", as some have described us, are the ones who have benefited from their increased risk-taking.
Thank you for the information...I am trying to multi-task..and doing a lousy job on all fronts I am afraid!!!
Yes...but, I read all of the posts...and am kicking myself for missing it!!!
Hopefully, they will show it again tonight..
I am going to have to watch Hairball later...you guys mentioned Gregory so much...that the whole show will probably be about this "non-story" ....LOL
You just know, as dumb as it sounds, that they will try to weave some tale of wrongdoing and coverup. They do not know how foolish they look, or they do not care.
Been busy cleaning up today from the storm..took at look, saw your usual Senate coverage ping..then realized that their had been 150 posts to the thread today...so I figured, What Gives....did Byrd die at his desk...your thread got hijacked, though in a good cause...LOL
David Gregory drools "Bushbashing". He and Chrissy will be having a field-day with VP Cheney's misfortune. I guess I will have to watch Hardball this evening just to find out what spew comes out of their mouths.
Sounds like Sen Dodd ate some bad corn flakes this morning.
Just an observation....Sen. Baucus talks like he is drunk.
The fact that one of the press people actually asked if Scott McClellan though that Cheney's immediate resignation was called for...
lets us all know how over the top they have gone over this whole thing...but, what gets me is...they STILL surprise me at their stupidity.
They just don't GET what Americans think....that this was a one day, "oh my goodness, I am glad the man wasn't seriesly hurt" moments...and that is IT..
THEY think that this is cause to bring down the WHOLE administration....LOL
Don't these Senators EVER get the message that Americans do NOT want to give up the tax cuts...because we are smart enough to know that those cuts are what is stimulating the economy...
LOL. Yes he does.
"Just an observation....Sen. Baucus talks like he is drunk."
Well, now that you posed the thought, I seem to detect a thick tongue.
Gotta run everyone. Have a good one.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending bill violates section 407 of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.That exchange erected a 60 vote hurdle for the asbestos bill. Not a cloture motion, it's purely coincidental that both have the same hurdle. Before getting to the question of "where did THAT rule come from?", here are portions of the debate that followed the point of order.Mr. SPECTER. I move to waive the point of order under the applicable provisions of the rules and statutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive is debatable. ...
Mr. DOMENICI. ... I want the Senators who are worried about voting to waive this point of order to understand this is not a budgetary issue. This is a technical point of order that got to the Senate because the Congressional Budget Office, I assume, or the Parliamentarian in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office, ruled that any expenditure of money exceeding $5 billion over a baseline in the year 2016 cannot be sustained. ...So let me say, if you want to kill this bill based upon a point of order that is--it is almost not a point of order, it is just a little, tiny technicality--it gets in by the skin of its teeth on an interpretation--then vote for it. If you are worried about saving money, and being a tightfisted budgeteer, then understand that this has nothing to do with being a tightfisted budgeteer because there is no budgeting involved. ...
Mr. CONRAD. Yes. I have talked directly to the chairman of the Budget Committee, and he has said to me he believes that clearly this budget point of order does lie. And he is buttressed, I might say to my colleague, by the Congressional Budget Office itself, which says on page 2 of their report on this legislation called S. 852, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, in the last paragraph:
Pursuant to section 407 of H. Con. Res. 95 (the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, Fiscal Year 2006), CBO estimates that enacting S. 852 would cause an increase in direct spending greater than $5 billion in at least one 10-year period from 2016 to 2055. ...
Mr. SESSIONS. ... I say again that I respect this point of order and I respect Senator Ensign for raising it. I point out this is indeed technical in the sense that the monies in this fund are not Federal Government money, and that if the fund runs out of money, the Government doesn't put in extra funds. It goes back into the litigation system and the plaintiffs continue their lawsuits in that fashion. Therefore, I think it would be wise under these circumstances to waive the Budget Act. ...
12 . POSTAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND ENHANCEMENT ACT -- (Senate - February 09, 2006)
Mr. KENNEDY. ... The sponsors claim the budget point of order against the bill is technical, but the financial inadequacy of the trust fund to meet its obligation is very real. Should the trust fund fail, both asbestos victims and the taxpayers will pay a heavy price.8 . ASBESTOS -- (Senate - February 10, 2006)
Mr. SESSIONS. ... I urge my colleagues to look into this point. Do not allow this supermajority vote. To keep the bill on track, 60 Senators will have to vote to waive this point of order. It would be a tragedy, indeed. When we see Senator Leahy, Senator Specter, and Senator Sessions supporting a piece of legislation, when we see the Washington Times and the Washington Post supporting a piece of legislation, when we see the veterans groups incredibly anxious to see this legislation passed, and when we see overwhelmingly the businesses that are involved in this process and are paying out this money that want to see it passed, why can't we get it passed?Let's not allow it to fall on a supermajority vote of 60 instead of the normal 50 required to pass legislation. I hope everyone will study it, and when they do, I think they will feel comfortable in voting to waive the budget point of order.
14 . THE FAIR ACT -- (Senate - February 10, 2006)
In each case, a point of order is the procedural mechanism for enforcing the provisions set forth in the budget resolution. Points of order, however, are not self- enforcing; a member must raise a point of order to enforce the spending and revenue amounts included in a budget resolution. Congress may consider and enact legislation even if it were to violate the provisions of a budget resolution if no point of order is made.Section 503 of H.Con.Res. 95 in the 108th Congress passed the Senate on April 11, 2003, roll-call vote No. 134 passing 51-50, straight party line with Zell Miller crossing over.Also, budget enforcement points of order may be waived. In the House, a special rule reported by the Rules Committee and adopted by the House may be used to waive any point of order. In the Senate, these budgetary points of order may be waived by unanimous consent or by a vote of the Senate on a waiver motion as provided under Section 904 of the CBA. A motion to waive most Congressional Budget Act points of order requires a three-fifths vote of all Senators duly chosen and sworn (60 votes if there are no vacancies), although Section 303(a) may be waived by simple majority. This supermajority requirement was extended through September 30, 2008, by the FY2004 budget resolution (see Section 503 of H.Con.Res. 95). [N.B. 108th Congress]
Budget Resolution Enforcement
CRS 98-815 GOV - Updated July 17, 2003
SEC. 503. EXTENSION OF SUPERMAJORITY ENFORCEMENT.(a) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any provision of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) of section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall remain in effect for purposes of Senate enforcement through September 30, 2008.
(b) REPEAL- Senate Resolution 304, agreed to October 16, 2002 (107th Congress), is repealed.
SEC. 403. EXTENSION OF SENATE ENFORCEMENT.Section 403 of H.Con.Res. 95 in the 109th Congress passed the Senate on April 28, 2005, roll-call vote No. 114 passing 52-47, straight party line except DeWine crossed over and voted Nay.(a) EXTENSION- Notwithstanding any provision of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) of section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall remain in effect for purposes of Senate enforcement through September 30, 2010.
(b) IN GENERAL-
(1) UNFUNDED MANDATES- Section 425(a)(1) and (2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall be subject to the waiver and appeal requirements of subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) of section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(2) CONSIDERATION OF BUDGET LEGISLATION- Section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall be subject to the waiver and appeal requirements of subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) of section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. For the purpose of Section 303, the year covered by the resolution shall be construed as the upcoming fiscal year only.
(3) APPLICATION TO RECONCILIATION- This subsection shall not apply to any legislation reported pursuant to reconciliation directions contained in a concurrent resolution on the budget.
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- This subsection shall remain in effect for purposes of Senate enforcement through September 30, 2010.
What is this amendment from Wyden about oil about??
The oil companies get some tax breaks for exploration, etc. Wyden wants them ended. I hope it fails.
Thanks
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.