Wednesday, Feb 1, 2006
9:15 a.m.: Convene and proceed to consideration of H.R. 4297, the Tax Reconciliation bill. Thereafter begin a period of morning business.
Previous Meeting
Tuesday, Jan 31, 2006
The Senate convened at 9:45 a.m. and adjourned at 10:11 p.m., following the president's State of the Union address. One record vote was taken.
I don't know what bill the talk is in the context of, but it was an entertaining speech.
COMMENTS ON THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS -- (House of Representatives - February 01, 2006)
[Page: H128] GPO's PDF
---
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
[Page: H129] GPO's PDF
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last night, Cindy Sheehan was evicted from this Chamber and arrested. Her crime? Wearing a T-shirt that highlighted the number of dead soldiers in Iraq and asking, ``How many more?''
Since when is free speech conditional on whether or not you agree with the President of the United States? In fact, isn't the whole point of the first amendment to our Constitution to protect dissenters? And how ironic is it, Mr. Speaker, that this outrageous suppression of peaceful protest should take place on the very same day that America lost one of the pioneers of civil disobedience, Coretta Scott King.
I will say about this episode what I said about the torture of prisoners, the PATRIOT Act, and the administration's illegal domestic surveillance program: How can we claim to be fighting on behalf of freedom around the world, making the world safe for freedom, when we are smothering freedom here at home?
Let us not forget also that Cindy Sheehan has given her child for this country and this war. She deserves the sympathy and gratitude of every American. No one who sat in this Chamber last night has the moral authority she does to express an opinion on the Bush Iraq policy.
But I might argue that it is actually a little misleading to classify Ms. Sheehan's views as ``dissent'' or ``protest,'' because a majority of Americans agree with her that the invasion of Iraq was a tragic mistake and a majority agrees with her that the President misled us about weapons of mass destruction intelligence in order to justify this war.
The President, meanwhile, represents a minority view, and he tried once again to sell that minority view to skeptical Americans last night. And once again he did so by employing a spin, misleading rhetoric, and outright deception.
Of course, he conveniently conflated the 9/11 attacks on America with the conflict in Iraq, exploiting a national tragedy for the umpteenth time. He talked about the importance of Iraqi reconstruction, but did not mention that the official in charge of reconstruction says there is not enough funding to complete key projects. He said that military commanders on the ground would make decisions for troop levels, but in 2003 he dismissed the general who correctly warned that keeping the peace in post-war Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of troops.
The President set up this misleading either/or proposition choice last night: you either support his militarism, or you believe in ``retreating within our borders and the false comfort of isolation.''
This is a false charge. We should absolutely be engaging the nations of the world, especially ones that are poor, underdeveloped, and vulnerable to terrorism; but we should be engaging the world with humanitarian support, not with bombs and missiles.
Yes, by all means, let us meet the challenges of the world, where too many suffer under economic and political repression. But instead of sending troops, let us send small business loans, let us send agricultural experts, let us send doctors, teachers, scientists and constitutional scholars. Let us engage, not invade.
This has been the core philosophy of my SMART Security Plan that I have discussed here many, many times: less brawn, more brains; less belligerence, more benevolence.
It is interesting that a President who has disparaged allies, rejected multilateralism, and ignored global commitments now talks about the dangers of isolation. The only way to promote peace and security to combat terrorism, to stop the spread of deadly weapons is to embrace a vision of global partnership, cooperation and diplomacy; and that is exactly what the President has failed to do.
He could start by abandoning his vision of conquest and bring our troops home. Only then can we begin the hard work of defeating tyranny and ensuring freedom and ensuring peace around the world.
Next Senate Meeting
Thursday, Feb 2, 2006
9:30 a.m.: Convene and resume consideration of H.R. 4297, the Tax Reconciliation bill.
Previous Meeting
Wednesday, Feb 1, 2006
The Senate convened at 9:15 a.m. and adjourned at 8:01 p.m. No record votes were taken.
Next Meeting
Tuesday, Feb 7, 2006
9:45 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
Thereafter, begin consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 852, the Asbestos Claims bill.
Previous Meeting
Monday, Feb 6, 2006
The Senate convened at 2:00 p.m. and adjourned at 6:14 p.m. No roll call votes were taken.
IRAQ POLICY
Rumsfeld and Pace Testify
Sen. John Warner (R-VA) chairs a Senate Armed Services Cmte. hearing at which both Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfled and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Peter Pace testify. The purpose is for the Committee to get one of its periodic updates on military operations in Iraq. Gens. Abizaid and Casey might also testify.
TUESDAY, C-SPAN, 9:30AM ET
Wednesday, Feb 8, 2006
9:45 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
Thereafter, begin consideration of S. 852, the Asbestos Claims bill.
Previous Meeting
Tuesday, Feb 7, 2006
The Senate convened at 9:45 a.m. and adjourned at 7:20 p.m. One record vote was taken.
Bin Laden said, "You will see the enemy in your home." McConnel points out the obvious, the enemy is -IN- our country, right now. McConnel cites the Faris case (Brooklyn Bridge guy) who is a US citizen. The Faris case is cited as a success of warrantless wiretapping.
SENATE Thursday, Feb 9, 2006
9:30 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
Thereafter, resume consideration of S. 852, the Asbestos Claims bill.
Previous Meeting
Wednesday, Feb 8, 2006
The Senate convened at 9:45 a.m. and adjourned at 7:53 p.m. No record votes were taken.
SENATE - Friday, Feb 10, 2006
9:30 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
Thereafter, resume consideration of S. 852, the Asbestos Claims bill.
Previous Meeting
Thursday, Feb 9, 2006
The Senate convened at 9:30 a.m. and adjourned at 8:28 p.m. One record vote was taken.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, over the last several weeks and months, we have run into a situation where executive nominations are brought to the floor, but they are being held up for a final vote for reasons that are totally unrelated to those individuals and the positions they seek.Contrast with the handling of Myers (out of Judiciary Committee since March 17) and Boyle (out of Judiciary Committee since June 16).It has been done historically to some extent, but it is done in a way that one Member--not necessarily a Democrat or Republican but a Member in this body--uses that nomination in some way to focus attention on an issue or focus attention on something they need or want. Therefore, it can be very useful leverage for an individual Senator, but it has now gotten to the point that it is unfair to that individual. We have public servants who are dedicating their lives and have been nominated by the President of the United States for executive positions, and then they are being stopped or held up for this unrelated matter. And, therefore, in a systematic way we were going to address that.
Yesterday, on one such event, I filed a cloture motion on the nomination of Eric Edelman to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Mr. Edelman had been reported out of the Armed Services Committee on July 29 of last year, 2005--came out of that Armed Services Committee and has been held up by someone on the other side of the aisle since that time.
In order to overcome that, I filed a cloture motion to ensure that the Senate was able to act on that nomination. We did that last night. That vote would have occurred tomorrow morning on cloture, and, because it is one person holding up Mr. Edelman, we would have gotten cloture and then it would have required a rollcall vote.
I understand that the other side has agreed to vitiate the cloture vote, and has agreed to a voice vote now--this evening--instead of requiring that cloture vote tomorrow and a rollcall vote. Our side appreciates that, and I think most Senators appreciate that since the vote would have probably been 100 to 0 if we had that vote.
What all this means is we will finally be able to move forward on a nomination, and we are not going to have to have a vote tomorrow. Some of my colleagues have said that we are expecting a vote tomorrow, and you are going to have a vote that we need to have the vote. On the other hand, since cloture can be vitiated with this unanimous consent, we will go ahead and approve it by a voice vote.
The larger issue is we need to systematically address executive nominations which are being held up for unrelated reasons.
Again, Mr. Edelman came out on July 29, and already we are in early February of 2006.
Frist will argue that this being an "executive nomination," it deserves different treatment from "judicial nominations," which due to lifetime tenure are more important, or some similar excuse to justify continued inaction on the nominations.
SENATE - Monday, Feb 13, 2006
Noon: Convene and proceed to consideration of H.R.4297, the Tax Relief Act of 2005.
Previous Meeting
Friday, Feb 10, 2006
The Senate convened at 9:30 a.m. and adjourned at 2:08 p.m. No record votes were taken.
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.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060213-4.html
Senate Tuesday, Feb 14, 2006
9:45 a.m.: Convene and resume consideration of H.R.4297, the Tax Relief bill.
Thereafter, resume consideration of S. 852, the Asbestos Claims bill.
Previous Meeting
Monday, Feb 13, 2006
The Senate convened at 12:00 noon and adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Two record votes were taken.
Senate - Wednesday, Feb 15, 2006
9:30 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
Thereafter, resume debate on the motion to proceed to S. 2271, the USA PATRIOT Act amendments.
Previous Meeting
Tuesday, Feb 14, 2006
The Senate convened at 9:45 a.m. and adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Six record votes were taken.
Leahy is now introducing something referred to a "President's Program" - urging Presindet Bush to come clean with the American people.