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)
I have no idea which two are left to go, but both have to be AYE or the asbestos bill is dead.
Coburn is an aye. I was wondering.
Enzi aye.
Enzi AYE makes it 60-40 -- by my unofficial count.
Down she goes. Someone's absent.
Meanwhile, the vote as cast is in effect. Asbestos bill is dead.
who's absent?
First time I've seen a cloture motion on a motion to proceed to consideration.
I'm waiting for the roll call vote to appear at the Senate website
Asbsetos bill is dead.
Feingold is filibustering renewal of the USA Patriot Act from the get go, by objecting to taking the bill up for consideration.
Frist setting out tomorrow's schedule ... resume motion to proceed to the consideration of the USA Patriot Act. Senate adjourned until 9:30 tomorrow.
Not Voting - 1 - Inouye (D-HI)
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.
I didn't get to watch the Senate AT ALL yesterday, but I did see the last few minutes when Frist was closing down...and that twit Babs Boxer FOR Russ Feingold objected to proceding to the Patriot Act...
NOW...the REPS have got to get in front of a TV camera today..and explain that first Harry REid bragged that they KILLED the Patriot Act a few weeks ago..
but, then, after good faith, bi-partisan discussions with Bush, it was changed,....BUT, NOW the dems are still standing in the way of our intelligence agencies being able to do their jobs to protect this country...
THEY need to have a hissy fit....like Reid would be doing, if they were keeping the dems from getting a bill passed.
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: ...By Mr. FRIST:
S. 2283. A bill to establish a congressional commemorative medal for organ donors and their families; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
22 . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few moments I will have a very brief statement about what went on with the vote on the asbestos bill, but for our colleagues, I wish to outline where we are going tonight and over the next several days.Calendar No. 360, S. 2271, is the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act. This bill addresses some of the concerns of Members on both sides of the aisle as it relates to the PATRIOT Act. I believe that we strongly support it and we are prepared to consider this measure next.
Therefore, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 2271, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feingold, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I had hoped we would at least be able to proceed to that bill tonight. As our colleagues know, this bill is ready to go. It is an important bill. It is important for the safety and security of the American people. It is a bill we have worked on for a long period of time, and we believe there is overwhelming support for this bill. The consent I asked for was for the Senate to begin consideration of that legislation. We had the objection from the other side of the aisle that was expressed.
I now move to proceed to S. 2271. The motion to proceed is now pending and is debatable. We have been told that there will be an effort to filibuster the motion to proceed. Therefore, I now send a cloture motion to the desk and ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
11 . USA PATRIOT ACT ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS
Mr. LEVIN. Last week, Senator KYL placed a statement in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD regarding the Graham-Levin amendment, which was enacted last year as section 1405 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and as section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, as included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006. Senator KYL and Senator REID cosponsored the Graham-Levin amendment in the Senate.Senator KYL argues that this provision was intended to retroactively strip the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over pending cases. Senator KYL's statement attached a January 18, 2006, letter from Senator KYL and Senator GRAHAM to Attorney General Gonzales, which makes the same argument. ...
The other problem which I focused on last Thursday [November 10] with the first Graham amendment was that it would have stripped all the courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over pending cases. What we have done in this amendment, we have said that the standards in the amendment will be applied in pending cases, but the amendment will not strip the courts of jurisdiction over those cases. For instance, the Supreme Court jurisdiction in Hamdan is not affected. ..... I cosponsored the Graham amendment with Senator Graham because I believe it is a significant improvement over the provision which the Senate approved last Thursday. ..... The direct review will provide for convictions by the military commissions, and because it would not strip courts of jurisdiction over these matters where they have taken jurisdiction, it does, again, apply the substantive law and assume that the courts would apply the substantive law if this amendment is agreed to. However, it does not strip the courts of jurisdiction.
Senator Graham took the floor again immediately after I concluded my explanation of what our new amendment accomplished. He did not disagree with my statement about the effect of the revised bill on pending cases anywhere in his remarks. Indeed, neither Senator Graham nor Senator Kyl said anything at that time to contest my very clear statement that the new amendment did not retroactively strip the courts of jurisdiction over pending cases.
When the Senate approved the Graham-Levin Amendment by a vote of 84 to 14 on November 15, 2005, I explained again at S12,802 that our amendment would not strip the courts of jurisdiction over pending cases:
The Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment would not apply the habeas prohibition in paragraph (1) to pending cases. So, although the amendment would change the substantive law applicable to pending cases, it would not strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear them. Under the Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment, the habeas prohibition would take effect on the date of enactment of the legislation. Thus, this prohibition would apply only to new habeas cases filed after the date of enactment. The approach in this amendment preserves comity between the judiciary and legislative branches. It avoids repeating the unfortunate precedent in Ex parte McCardle, in which Congress intervened to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over a case which was pending before that Court.
Again, neither Senator Graham nor Senator Kyl offered a contrary interpretation of the Graham-Levin amendment at that time.
The bill then went to a House-Senate conference. At this time, the inapplicability of the jurisdiction-stripping provision to pending cases was so clear that the administration's allies in the House tried in vain to alter the language of the effective date provision to make the jurisdiction-stripping provision apply retroactively to pending cases, as it had in the original Graham amendment. I objected to this language, and it was rejected by the Senate conferees. ...
As a result, the language sought by the administration and its allies, which would have applied the jurisdiction-stripping provision to pending cases, was not included in the final version of the bill.
It was not until after we concluded the conference and the conference report passed the Senate on December 21, 2005, that Senator Kyl placed a colloquy in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD arguing that Section 1005 should be interpreted to retroactively strip the courts of jurisdiction over pending cases. At the same time, a number of other Senators placed statements in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD stating their belief that the provision would not strip the courts of jurisdiction over pending cases.
Those statements, coming as they did after the conclusion of the conference and final action on the bill in both the House and the Senate, carry no more weight as legislative history than the statement that Senator Kyl placed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD last week or any other after-the-fact statement in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Both the contemporaneous legislative history and the language and structure of the Graham-Levin amendment itself demonstrate that this provision was not intended to, and did not, retroactively strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction over pending cases.
Levin's statment relates to a pending case, I'm sure which case (or cases), but Hamdan may be one of them.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the lifetime of accomplishments of Dr. Robert W. Gore, who was recently inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. ...Check out the list of proposed amendments to the asbestos bill! There must be 70 or 80 of them at 28 . AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED -- (Senate - February 14, 2006).In 1976, Bob Gore took the reigns as CEO of W.L. Gore & Associates. This same year, the company received its first order for GORE-TEX fabric, which was the first fabric that was both waterproof and breathable. Initially used to make rainwear, this groundbreaking fabric would revolutionize the clothing industry and forever change how people interacted with their environments.
16 . ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS -- (Senate - February 14, 2006)
SENATE RESOLUTION 371--DESIGNATING JULY 22, 2006 AS ``NATIONAL DAY OF THE AMERICAN COWBOY''S. Res. 371
Whereas pioneering men and women, recognized as cowboys, helped establish the American West;
Whereas that cowboy spirit continues to infuse this country with its solid character, sound family values, and good common sense;
Whereas the cowboy embodies honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, respect, a strong work ethic, and patriotism;
Whereas the cowboy loves, lives off of, and depends on the land and its creatures, and is an excellent steward, protecting and enhancing the environment;
Whereas the cowboy continues to play a significant role in the culture and economy of the United States; ...
Whereas the cowboy is an American icon; ...
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates July 22, 2006, as ``National Day of the American Cowboy''; and
(2) encourages the people of the United States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
And finally, some more nomination in the judiciary, including one Circuit Court nominee.
THE JUDICIARYJEROME A. HOLMES, OF OKLAHOMA, TO BE UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA, VICE SVEN E. HOLMES, RESIGNED.
MILAN D. SMITH, JR., OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, VICE A. WALLACE TASHIMA, RETIRED.
FRANK D. WHITNEY, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, VICE H. BRENT MCKNIGHT, DECEASED.
I found a UPI article and posted an excerpt of it on a thread that is dedicated to the Senate's handling of the Gitmo habeas issue in general, as developing in the context of the Graham amendment that changed the pertinent jurisdictional statute. Same excerpt posted here ...
Court tackles new Gitmo detainee law
By PAMELA HESS AND SHAUN WATERMAN
UPI Security and TerrorismWASHINGTON, Jan. 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., is soliciting opinions on whether a new law denying the Guantanamo prisoners the right to challenge their detention in federal court applies retroactively to all those in custody.
If the court decides the law does apply across the board, many lawsuits filed by detainees against the Bush administration using the centuries-old common law principle of habeas corpus would come to an end. ...
The Supreme Court sidestepped that question in a related decision handed down in 2004, but it too may be forced to rule on it in a separate Guantanamo case -- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld -- to be argued before it in March. ...
According to Graham's office, some 160 cases involving 300 Guantanamo prisoners had already been filed with the D.C. circuit when the act became law.
The administration is arguing that the law applies retroactively as well, and said last week it wants all federal courts to dismiss all the Guantanamo cases before them.
Congress, however, is less clear on the matter.
Graham, a former military lawyer, sides with the White House but left room for the courts to arrive at their own decision.
"Under no circumstance did I intend... that existing lawsuits filed by enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would be statutorily preserved. Nor do I believe a reasonable reading of the statute would lead to that conclusion. The intent of the language ... is that courts will decide in accord with their own rules, procedures and precedents whether to proceed in pending cases," he stated last week.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060110-051639-8337r
I'm sure glad they took time out of their busy day to take care of that. Gee whiz.
LOL. I'm sure that will work. Those Senate Resolutions really pack a punch. I was watching Feingold earlier and trying to decide what he was up to. I believe he is to speak at 11. I suppose he will tell us why the Patriot Act is evil.
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.