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)
We'll be able to sort this out tomorrow morning. Schumer is one of the bigger snakes in the Senate - he was pushing to have a vote on his amendment "on the spot."
Something about it being illegal for the President to allow or sign off on a deal purchase of a foreign company
There is a rather complex regulatory scheme in place now, including antitrust and investment disclosure requirements. Those are independent of CFIUS/Exon-Florio requirements.
It is an amendment aimed directly at the UAE...because it mentions no sale, lease, or even business can be done in America by any country that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan before 2001....
NOT TOO subtle, eh?
Now, they are having dueling quorum calls, and objections to the quorum calls being visciated....LOL
This is turning into a real spitting match, could get fun!!
Your tax dollars at work ...
Ahhh, so it's your turn to be paying attention! Where did you find that? Just listening while the rest of us were napping?
I wandered around the web looking for superior sources of realtime Senate observations, and so far found only ...
http://www.senateblog.org/index.cfm <- Deader than a doornail
Yeppers, they were trying to go to the Wyden, Inhofe, someone else amendment about something (holds)?...
When Schumer comes to the floor, insisting on putting forth an amendment...the amendment was read by the clerk, which I paraphrased in the last post...Santorum stood up to object, because he said HIS amendment was next in line...
A quorum call was called, and objected to...back and forth, finally a quorum call was accepted...but NOW, they can't get off of the quorum call because of objections...
Backing up a bit...Lott has been strutting around the Senate floor this morning, throwing his weight around, and just kind of "talking" about things he would have done, had he had a chance, blah, blah...
McCain tried to get some time, and there was again objection to waiving the quorum requirement. Durbin expressed the objection (visible on C-SPAN2 camera).
Yea .. it's happened a couple of times
I think it was Santorum asking for it
I couldn't tell because I was upstairs listening on my wireless head phones
Okay...I just now got to turn on the TV...granddaughter went for a nap...hehe
Thanks for the update on WHO was objecting..
That's it .. Thanks
I wasn't sure exactly all that was said and I didn't want to mess and confuse things up
Boy...that Senate blog site IS DEAD.....asleep?? LOL
Darn, looks like I missed all the action.
Grassley. That's a fascinating notion, elimination of secret holds. Holds would be okay, just not in secret. I know Hillary! objects to that change.
Lott was trying to manage the timing of voting, basically to arrange a time when Senators would assemble to handle a stack of votes, but he seemed fine with voting on the Wyden/Grassley/Inhofe amendment.
Lott has been strutting around the Senate floor this morning, throwing his weight around, and just kind of "talking" about things he would have done, had he had a chance, blah, blah...
I assume he is managing the floor action on one or both of the pending bills - and it's pretty natural, having been the Senate Majority leader, to talk about rules in a way that reflects on past leaders. Lott often uses a phrase resembling "I wouldn't have done this exactly this way, but ..."
Not necessarily...this could get good with no one wanting to get off the quorum call!!! LOL
I tried the domain on a whim, since scotusblog is a pretty good website. I think somebody set up a domain HOPING to get contributors, but unable to contribute anything themself.
Schumer's page doesn't have anything recent on the ports deal ... Feb 24, 2006 Press Release is all I found there.
Yes...I understand about Lott...I guess I was being snarky because Lott seems to enjoy sticking it to President Bush whenever he gets a chance....so I was being mean. My fault!!
He's been acting like the majority leader
Yes...he has. And, as much as I don't like him...and resent the way he treats President Bush....at least he was showing who was boss during this legislation...
At least until Schumer came running in!!
A few minutes ago....Harry Reid was recognized..and then nothing happened.....LOL
BTW...I switched to the House for a second, and I think they just completed a procedural vote on forcing employers to pay more toward employee's pension funds...I believe it passed..probably on a party vote.
This amendment is, in effect, an effort to plug the holes that were not placed in this legislation by the Rules Committee and the Homeland Security Committee. I hope we have a good debate on this issue. This is not something that should take a long time. I have told the distinguished majority leader this is no attempt to stall this legislation. I have told the majority leader that unless there are issues outside of what the two committees did that are within their jurisdiction, we have no intention of offering a myriad of issues we have Members clamoring to offer--issues on the port security deal, minimum wage, all kinds of things dealing with health care. There is a long list of issues we want to bring up as soon as possible, but we are not going to do it on this legislation. We believe this should be for lobbying reform. So I think it needs the good faith of both parties to see if we can move down that road.Senate, March 7, 2006 - Pages S1851 & S1852 <- Direct link
Maybe Frist will come out and blast Reid again, for being untrustworthy. ROTFL.
WOW!
UNBELIEVABLE!
How can they get away with this......that HAS to be UNConstitutional...
oh- and thanks for the ping... I must have missed everything.....imagine that...
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.