Posted on 03/01/2006 6:27:28 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)
Well, we can give it a whirl...lol.
First question:
"Senator Feingold, how much extra campaign slush money were YOU able to pocket from the 527's in the 2004 election??
That's the proper course of action with Olympia Snowe as well.
That's what the damn 'Rats are good at. Coming up with these phony investigations to make it look like they're doing the "people's work".
I have come to realize that they are ONLY interested in having endless hearings and investigations...
It means face time on TV...which to them, equals POWER...and that is what it is all about, feeding their egos every day, to make them feel more powerful than the POTUS...
Susan Collins is the WORST right now...and then comes Harry Reid...blech
Tuesday, Mar 7, 2006
9:45 a.m.: Convene and resume consideration of S. 2320, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Funding Act.
Previous Meeting
Monday, Mar 6, 2006
The Senate convened at 1:00 p.m. and adjourned at 7:21p.m. Two record votes were taken.
Heheheh.
Frist is going to bring a flag desecration bill to the floor.
Mr. LOTT: ... We can get into lowering the limit on gifts or meals or raise it? What are we doing here? Let's just go cold turkey. I don't want to have to be worrying about whether some cheap tie is worth $65 instead of $48. Let's say no gifts from lobbyists or registered agents. I don't know Senators who get gifts. I really don't know any. And it is preposterous, by the way, that you would be getting gifts from a registered lobbyist. So no gifts. ...Note that the formation of an Office of Public Integrity is included in a House Bill, H.R.4799.(Mr. CHAMBLISS assumed the Chair.)
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. I wanted to explain this tie that the Senator from Mississippi has maligned. I don't know if I could seek a parliamentary ruling. Is that a violation of rule XIX, degrading the tie of a Senator?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, it is not a violation under the rules.
Mr. ROBERTS. This was a tie, if the Senator will continue to yield, that was given to me by my wife.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, was this a gift?
Mr. ROBERTS. It was given to me by my wife, it did cost under $50, and it is the color of the ever-optimistic and fighting Wild Cats of the Kansas State University, and I thought it was a pretty nice tie to go with this dark suit. Should I change that under the banner of the bill?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, recognizing the seriousness of the charges and the hurt feelings and the attitude of the Senator from Kansas, I ask unanimous consent that my disparaging remarks about his tie be expunged from the RECORD.
Mr. ROBERTS. I would appreciate that, but it didn't cause me much of a problem at all.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I hope this is not an indication of the tenor of the debate that is going to occur this week. I think that a little humor is fine, but I also think a little action is required in this area, and I promise to patch up my friend's feelings as soon as I get through here before the Senate.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me begin by applauding both Senator Dodd and Senator Lott for their work on the membership part of this bill, and for the outstanding statements explaining the provisions and urging us to act.Senator Lott mentioned that the Rules Committee bill was reported unanimously, and that the bill that came out of our Homeland Security Committee was reported with only one dissenting vote. That is a remarkable show of bipartisanship. But to my colleagues in the Senate, it is probably more remarkable to see two Senate committees working together very carefully, outlining the jurisdiction of each committee and working in concert to produce a comprehensive and well-balanced piece of legislation.
Title I of this bill is the Rules Committee bill; title II is the Homeland Security bill.
Today the Senate begins consideration of the first significant lobbying reform legislation in a decade. The bills we are debating today and over the course of this week represent the good work of their sponsors, Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman--and Senator Lott and Senator Dodd as well--and the hard work of the two committees I have mentioned.
The committee I am privileged to chair, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, marked up the Lieberman bill this past Thursday. The committee reported out the measure, as I mentioned, on a 13-to-1 vote.
The issue we take up today is serious, and it is pressing. Recent scandals involving Jack Abramoff and Representative Duke Cunningham have brought to light Congress's need to strengthen the laws and rules governing disclosure, and to ban practices that erode public confidence in the integrity of government decisions. That is what this debate is all about. ...
I note that the committee also adopted an amendment that would require the disclosure of so-called ``grassroots lobbying efforts.'' I did not support this amendment because of my concern that we don't want to chill any effort to encourage citizens to contact their members of Congress, but I nevertheless appreciate the efforts of the sponsors of the amendment--Senators Lieberman and Levin--to address some of the legitimate concerns and to craft it in a way that is far more focused than the original provisions in the underlying bill that was before our committee. ...
The next subtitle of the bill creates a commission to strengthen confidence in Congress. This is a proposal included at the recommendation of my friend and colleague, Senator Norm Coleman. It would establish a commission to review and make some additional recommendations if needed. The commission would report its initial findings and recommendation to Congress by July 1, 2006. This is not a big, longstanding commission. It is a commission that is expected to act quickly, where we take a look at the whole area and report back.
I am very proud of the hard work of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on this issue. We have produced a strong bill, a strong bill that significantly increases the disclosure, that toughens the revolving-door provisions, and that will make a real difference in increasing the oversight of ethics and lobbying.
However, we need to take another look at a provision that did not get included in the bill that was included in the mark that Senator Lieberman and I put forward but was deleted as a result of an amendment. That is a provision to create an Office of Public Integrity within the congressional branch. I will be talking more about that later, but let me say that proposal by no means is an indication of disrespect for or lack of appreciation of the Senate Ethics Committee. We know the Senate Ethics Committee has a very difficult job and does a good job. The members who serve on it are individuals of great integrity. It address a problem of perception.
10 . LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2006
Whatever Commission Collins is referring to is expressed in the text of the proposed law. I presume its function is to put an independent stamp of approval (or not) on the efficacy of the lobbying and ethics reform actions.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is simply what I have called the energy price reduction amendment. Each year proponents of LIHEAP funding complain that energy prices have increased and therefore more assistance is needed. Yet subsidizing high prices does nothing to lower prices. Increasing the funding for today's LIHEAP without acting to reduce the price of energy tomorrow is not an acceptable solution. ...Specter's comments follow, but I just wanted to inject a comment that the Senate (and Congress) sure seem fond of getting involved in FOREIGN affairs, which I thought was the President's job. The taxpayers of the United States are funding political process all over the world.The American Gas Association, a strong supporter of increased LIHEAP funding, came to the same conclusion. Both entities called for a better, more efficient process for producing natural gas.
My amendment provides a more certain process for energy-related decisionmaking on public lands. It requires the Secretary to act on an energy-related application within 120 days. If the application is not approved, then the Secretary must inform the applicant as to the reasons and allow the applicant to modify its application. ...
On the subject of liquefied LNG, I was astonished to learn that two members of the Massachusetts House delegation inserted a provision in the transportation bill in the dark of the night--I know this, I was the author of that bill--it happened in the middle of the night before it was taken up the next morning, to the detriment of the Northeast region. They slipped in a provision that blocks the construction of an already approved LNG terminal by maintaining an old bridge scheduled for demolition because it has been classified as a navigational hazard. This short-sighted stunt by a few Members means that the Northeast region will be deprived of supply that would reduce wholesale natural gas prices by up to 20 percent--up to 20 percent. It was an LNG already accepted terminal in Massachusetts.
My amendment repeals that offensive provision so harmful to the entire Northeast. Bipartisan Members of this body, from the senior Senator from Maine to the senior Senator from New York, interested stakeholders from the AARP to the National Conference of Black Mayors, have all expressed their concern over how high energy prices are hurting their constituents.
Members, voting for this amendment means you are voting to lower those prices. A vote for this amendment means you are voting to help the LIHEAP beneficiaries. This is something that makes so much common sense and something that is hard to understand here in Washington, DC. We have to do something about increasing the supply of natural gas as well as home heating oils through the refining capacity as well as doing something to affect the supply.
14 . MAKING AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THE LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ...
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying report; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget:To the Congress of the United States:
In my State of the Union Address, I asked the Congress to give the President a line item veto. Today, I am sending the Congress a legislative proposal to give the President line item authority to reduce wasteful spending. This legislation will help to limit spending and ensure accountability and transparency in the expenditure of taxpayer funds. ...
My proposed legislation, the ``Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006,'' would provide a fast-track procedure to require the Congress to vote up-or-down on rescissions proposed by the President. There has been broad bipartisan support for similar proposals in the past. Under this proposal, the President could propose legislation to rescind wasteful spending, and the Congress would be obligated to vote quickly on that package of rescissions, without amendment. The same procedure would apply to new mandatory spending and to special interest tax breaks given to small numbers of individuals.
31 . DRAFT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION ENTITLED ``LEGISLATIVE LINE ...
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Craig, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Salazar, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Obama, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 2369. A bill to require a more reasonable period for delayed-notice search warrants, to provide enhanced judicial review of FISA orders and national security letters, to require an enhanced factual basis for a FISA order, and to create national security letter sunset provisions; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. DeMint, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Talent, Mr. Allen, Mr. Frist, Mr. Burns, Mr. Thune, Mr. Reid, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Lieberman, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 2370. A bill to promote the development of democratic institutions in areas under the administrative control of the Palestinian Authority, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
35 . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:I noted last month that it was odd that Frist would not permit these amendments to be offered and debated, perhaps approved, perhaps defeated. The Specter/Leahy bill covers the same ground that Feingold was covering.By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Crapo, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Salazar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Bunning, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Frist):
S. Res. 390. A resolution designating the week beginning March 13, 2006, as ``National Safe Place Week''; considered and agreed to.
36 . SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
["National Safe Place Week," that's where I go when threatened]
Mr. SPECTER ... The statement has been made that it is not anticipated that the House will act on such legislation this year. It is a long year. We will wait and see. We will see what the developments are. We will see how our fight against terrorism goes. We will see what the oversight provisions are. But this bill will be useful as a marker to promote further reconsideration of that original Senate bill that passed last year. ...Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the PATRIOT Act reauthorization legislation that the Senate may vote on this week still has serious flaws and troubling omissions. I have spent several months working closely with Members from both parties in an attempt to improve these defects. Even after the Bush administration and congressional Republicans hijacked the House-Senate conference, I tried to get this measure back on the right track. Working with a bipartisan group of Senators, we were able to achieve some improvements. I regret that the final package is not better and that the intransigence of the administration has prevented a better bill with better protections for the American people.
I remain committed to working to provide the tools that we need to protect the American people. That includes working to provide the oversight and checks needed on the uses of Government power and to improve the current reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I am therefore pleased to join Senator SPECTER, Senator SUNUNU, Senator CRAIG, Senator FEINGOLD, and others in introducing a bill to improve the reauthorization legislation in several important respects.
Most importantly, the Specter-Leahy bill corrects one of the most egregious ``police state'' provisions regarding gag orders. The Bush-Cheney administration used the last round of discussions with Republican Senators to make the gag order provisions worse, in my view, by forbidding any court challenge for 1 year. There is no justification for this mandatory waiting period for judicial review, and our bill eliminates it. Our bill also eliminates provisions that allow the Government to ensure itself of victory by certifying that, in its view, disclosure ``may'' endanger national security or ``may'' interfere with diplomatic relations. These un-American restraints on meaningful judicial review are unfair, unjustified, and completely unacceptable.
I sought to make these changes to the gag orders provisions in an amendment I filed to Senator SUNUNU's bill, S. 227l, which modified the conference report in various respects. Senator FEINGOLD filed other amendments aimed at bringing the conference report more in line with the bipartisan reauthorization bill that every Member of the Senate approved last year. Regrettably, the majority leader chose to prevent any effort to offer amendments to S. 227l and effectively stifled open debate. ...
Reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act has been a more difficult and far more painful process than it should have been. Under the leadership of Chairman SPECTER, the Judiciary Committee managed in just a few weeks to produce a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate unanimously. The House-Senate conference took a different course and produced a bill that Members on both sides of the aisle found unacceptable. It has been improved, but critical problems remain. The Specter-Leahy bill corrects the worst of these problems, and I will work with the chairman to enact these commonsense reforms before the end of the year.
38 . STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
So, Specter sees S.2369 as a placemarker, and Leahy is expecting action before the end of 2006.
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, March 7. 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 S. 2320, the LIHEAP funding bill, for 1 hour of debate equally divided between Senators SNOWE and ENSIGN or their designees; further that following that time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture, as under the previous order.
As I wrap this up, the Senate is opening for business on Tuesday morning, March 7. Senator Frist is announcing an intention to submit a flag desecration amendment to the Constitution.
I think flag burning is abhorrent, but I also think the Senate trivializes itself by taking it up as a matter of law. If a person doesn't resepect the country, they sure aren't going to respect its laws, and especially when the laws impose penalties for actions that cause no more physical harm than burning a similar sized piece of cloth.
The flag burning stuff is nonsense.
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Clearinghouse
Still looking for a concise focal point for S.2320. Kyl and Inhofe amendments involved. The bill survived a budget point of order last week.
18 . MAKING AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THE LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE
LOL. So they want to change the limits on gifts from lobbyists when no lobbyists actually give them those kinds of gifts. Such transparency. BTW, I am reading through your post and getting an education, as usual. Thanks.
That is hilarious, Mo1. Thanks for posting the link. I learned that there is a new verb in liberalland: to diary, as in "I diaried today". Sounds like....LOL.
Found it.
S.2320 - A bill to make available funds included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006
There are a good handful of amendments. An interesting pair is S.Amdt.2899 (Kyl) amended by S.Amnd.2913 (Frist). Snowe says that the Kyl amendment effectively guts her bill. I haven't seen or read Frist's amendment.
Sessions supports the Kyl amendment. Some good reading in there. Snowe is trying to buy votes, pure and simple.
It is BS like this that causes me to want to tear my hair out.
What I find interesting is the accurate statement that more deaths are caused by heat than cold, and LIHEAP represents preferrential treatment to cold states. If federal money is to be spent improving shelter conditions (an arguable proposition - I'd vote AGAINST it), the priority is wrong.
I'm hoping Snowe's measure is gutted by the Kyl amendment, and then some advancment in energy policy (and "in your face" to Kerry and Kennedy) by passage of the Inhofe amendment.
I don't yet have a sense of how good the chances are for that happening, but I hope it does. I don't like the program in the first place, but I would take guilty pleasure in seeing Olympia disappointed.
Kerry is up giving a tribute to Dana Reeve
He is USING HER DEATH AS CAMPAIGN TALKING POINTS...
and her body isn't even cold....
DISGUSTING!!
sadly yes
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.