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, it's a bit of "game theory" going on. If one trusts the President to do what it takes, regardless of others parsing the law in a way that makes it "wrong," then no amount of parsing by others will change the conduct. In fact, there is a benefit to the covert nature of the action of outward appearance is that of being reined in, but reality is the opposite.
In principle, our form of government is designed to require transparency to the people, by requireing legally enforcible actions to involve agreement by more than one branch. That's whehre my question of "how does it play out?" comes from.
They have GOT to be laughing at Congress' inability to see past it's own election cycle.
In their case, the focus is more on courts, I would think, than on Congress. But even MORE than either of those, on avoiding detection.
Care to speculate??
I think that Schumer and perhaps others are trying to hijack the flow of material coming up. This is an interesting form of filibuster. AFAIK, the various Committee meetings should be wrapped up, making a quorum of Senators available. So Senate leadership (both sides, Frist and Reid) are trying to figure out how to craft the ballet from here.
I noticed that there is no time agreement, so the pressure is somewhat off.
No need to guess. Frist is invoking cloture...again.
Notes that an amendment came up that would take the discussion off course from lobbying or ethics reform (that would be the Schumer amendment), so the cloture motion cuts off that sort of maneuver.
I bet Frist was trying to get Reid to make Schumer back off, so that a cloture motion would not have to be filed.
So, tomorrow will be amendments on the ethics and lobbying bills. Gives floor to Reid.
Reid wants to have the cloture vote tomorrow, instead of the usual one day intervening. "In the morning, cooler heads will prevail." Reid has his tail beween his legs.
Senate moving on to business other than lobbying, ethics, or ports. ;-)
Frist having to file cloture motion...because of Schumer's amendment....if cloture passes...Schumer's would be considered non-germane, I believe...right, Cboldt??
Reid wanting to work hard to get cloture vote tomorrow...he says he think they can get a lobbying reform bill....but cooler heads have to prevail...(Reid knows that it is his PROBLEM child, Schumer holding this up...so he was a wee bit more humble than usual)...
Cloture Friday morning unless a compromise worked out..
Senate done for the day...
Yeah. More because Schumer was insistent on making his amendment the subject of attention. Tha is, he wasn't going to let an amendment be offered that would immediately be ordered to the table. Absence of activity on lobbying reform today can be assigned directly to Senator Schumer.
if cloture passes...Schumer's would be considered non-germane ...
Non-germane can occur without cloture. Inhofe's amendment to LIHEAP went down yesteday on exactly those grounds, but he managed to get the amendment on the docket before the deadline. That being said, cloture does effectively limit amendments in a way that differs from the ordinary free-wheeling Senate procedure. I don't understand though, how Frist could persistently kill amendments offered by Feingold to USA PATRIOT Act, but couldn't do so for one amendment by Schumer. It may be, as you speculate, an artifact of having either a pending or invoked cloture motion.
Have any of you been watching Brit's show???
Major Garrett reported on what did/didn't happen in the Senate today...just was we were speculating.
BUT, then they showed the presser with Durbin, accusing the Senate Republicans of NOT wanting to ever vote on the Dubai deal...which we know is NOT true...
There are enough GOP Senators that wouldn't mind a vote...BUT, I hope they have enough integrity to actually hold out for "stand alone" legislation...unlike what the HOUSE is doing...slipping it in with the Supplemental Defense Spending Bill which not only has Iraq and Afghanistan...but Katrina.
BTW...did you see where Bush stiffed MY state today...and made Gov. Perry mad??? Perry is running for reelection and his opponent on the Dem side...is going to be Chris Bell...who WAS a House rep...who lost his seat to redistricting, and was instrumental in bringing several ethics violation charges against Tom Delay after hid defeat, but before he actually had to leave office...
IOW..a weasel...and I am SURE that Perry is not a happy candidate tonight...because he was counting on his response to Katrina (offering the Astrodome, and schools)..as being his ticket to a shoe-in re-election...
I am sure he will win...but, he must be as angry with President Bush as all of the GOP is right now...sigh.
Thanks so much for the report, sleuth. Just as all of that was being reported, my girls started emailing back and forth on arrangements for our Saturday brunch and the messages were coming in fast and furious so I missed most of it.
I rarely watch anything by C-SPAN or TV-Land (seriously).
There are enough GOP Senators that wouldn't mind a vote [on a DPW-related measure] ...BUT, I hope they have enough integrity to actually hold out for "stand alone" legislation...unlike what the HOUSE is doing...slipping it in with the Supplemental Defense Spending Bill which not only has Iraq and Afghanistan...but Katrina.
One way or another, any ports-deal legislation will be debated separately. Remember ANWR being "sort of" debated in the appropriations bill late last year? I wouldn't count on "integrity" causing a measure to run on its own. Heck, even McCain's torture amendment, Warner's "report on Iraq" amendment and Graham's "no habeas for Gitom" amendment were all parts of larger bills.
BTW...did you see where Bush stiffed MY state today...and made Gov. Perry mad?
Stiffed on money? Or by not showing up and publicly glad-handing?
he must be as angry with President Bush as all of the GOP is right now...
The President has broad shoulders. No need to lose any sleep over the stuff that's going on now - it's less monumental than a good deal of what he's had to deal with over the years.
Stupid fingers.
Stiffed on money...the show also showed Bush in New Orleans today, giving a speech...
The sound bite they played had Bush saying that he is going to ask Congress to make sure that the 42 BILLION allocated for the Katrina relief ALL go to Louisiana...yikes!!
Calm down. 4-point-2, not forty-two! And it is all according to plan. I'm not sure that TX is getting stiffed for $$, sure wouldn't assume that to be the case.
Of course, the decision-making for the individual homeowners is going to be made easier when Congress funds the $4.2 billion that I asked them to fund for the state of Louisiana for housing purposes. Now, this $4.2 billion is in conjunction with $6.2 billion of CDBG money for housing grants. The $4.2 billion request was done in a coordinated effort with state and local authorities.The reason I thought this number made sense is because the number fits into a well-thought-out plan that has been put together by the local folks. The housing plan has been coordinated by state authorities with local authorities, as well as with HUD authorities. In other words, we've all been working together to figure out how to come up with a housing plan that will restore the confidence of the people of this important part of our country. And in order to make sure that housing plan meets its goals, Congress should make sure that the $4.2 billion I requested goes to the state of Louisiana.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060308-1.html
I've been playing hookey from the news, Txsleuth. Just too disgusted with the constant give in by our side.
Sorry I didn't respond right away....but, yes, on later shows I heard the 4.2 BILLION number...but, what is a decimal point at this stage of spending???
LOL...just kidding, sort of.
Thanks for the transcript though. I am watchinig c-span 2...which is a replay of a Katrina hearing today...
Sec. of Housing and Urban Developement, Alphonso Jackson, just said that it isn't feasible to rebuild in a lot of areas that were flooded.
Earlier, Chertoff had to explain to Durbin the difference between the levees being topped and the levees being breached....LOL
I can certainly see why you would...and will respect that...let me know when/if you want me to ping you to a thread again...!!!
Thursday, Mar 9, 2006
9:30 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
Previous Meeting
Wednesday, Mar 8, 2006
The Senate convened at 9:30 a.m. and adjourned at 6:01 p.m. One record vote was taken.
Thanks....ick, first person I hear is Susan Collins...what a way to start the day!
thanks for the heads up ... mute botton is on
Reid is talking about Schummers amendment
Anyway, sort of an interesting day. The first item I looked for, based on yesterday's part of this thread, was Inhofe's amendment regarding pay. What's put here is mostly the guts of the amendment, but the procedural steps leading up to offering the amendment were funny, in the dry-Senate sort of humor.
Inhofe was trying to get time to offer the amendment, and Dodd kept objecting - basically on the grounds that time was alternating between DEM and GOP Senators. Inhofe thought he had a certain time slot, and ended up not getting the one he thought he had. Plenty of confusion, or may I say "Lott's" of confusion, because Senator Lott certainly contributed to the confusion.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask if our leader would defer for a question. I appreciate very much the Senator's attention. I have been down here since before the bill came up with the intention of being the first one. I yielded to Senator Santorum. We wanted to go back and forth. It was my understanding Senator Carper was recognized and I would be right after him and that time has arrived.What is the problem?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. He came here early on, ready to go. But there had already been discussion with Senator Santorum about being able to offer his amendment. We try to go back and forth from one side of the aisle to the other.
Mr. INHOFE. Last I saw, Senator Carper was a Democrat.
Mr. LOTT. He was just speaking. He didn't have an amendment.
"Last I saw, Senator Carper was a Democrat." LOL. Anyway, Inhofe's amendment would change entitlement to COLA pay increases, so that a Senator could not vote against the increase, get the increase, then claim to be against it.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this amendment is very simple. I have always felt that the greatest single hypocrisy every year is when Members come up and vote to exempt Members of Congress from a cost-of-living increase. The hypocrisy comes in when all the press releases hit the home State and they talk about how great this is, saying they are great reformers and then, of course, it is defeated and they end up taking the increase anyway.11 . LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2006
The next item that came up was Grassley, talking about holds. He was talking in the general, but there is an interesting aspect to his (actually, Wyden/Inhofe/Grassley) proposal that you will read in his commentary.
After Grassley was the Schumer amendment. I'll just run it all together with ellipses in the appropriate places.
Mr. GRASSLEY ... The amendment by Senator Wyden and myself and Senator Inhofe which we proposed today would establish a standing order requiring that holds be made public. We believe it is time to have the Senate consider our proposed standing order and then decide as a body whether to end this secret process.For my colleagues who might be apprehensive about this change in doing business, I ask you to just give it a try. I should point out that this measure is a standing order which, while binding on Senators, does not formally amend the Senate rules and can more easily be changed if it turns out to be unworkable. ...
Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent we set aside the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment and go to the next pending amendment.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, could I speak, before we set it aside, on this amendment?
Mr. LOTT. I withhold my unanimous consent request at this time, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The consent request is withdrawn without objection.
The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. I commend my colleague from Oregon and my colleague from Oklahoma for their lone battle on this issue. It is an issue we all agree with and very much appreciate their hard work.
AMENDMENT NO. 2959 TO AMENDMENT NO. 2944
Second, I will say a word on another issue that is pending in the House of Representatives. At this point, I offer an amendment at the desk as a second degree to Mr. Wyden's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Does he have to have consent? He just calls it up and it would not----
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not need consent to offer a second-degree amendment.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an amendment numbered 2959 to the Wyden amendment numbered 2944.
The amendment is as follows:
In the interest of national security, effective immediately, notwithstanding any other provision of law and any prior action or decision by or on behalf of the President, no company, wholly owned or controlled by any foreign government that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan during the Taliban's rule between 1996-2001, may own, lease, operate, or manage real property or facilities at a United States port.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding was that the Santorum-Feingold-McCain-Lieberman amendment was by consent, next in line, is that not the case?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, that is the next first-degree amendment that would be in order.
Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Is there objection?
Mr. SCHUMER. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. DURBIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will continue the call of the roll.
The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). Without objection, it is so ordered.
CLOTURE MOTION
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion on the bill to the desk.
13 . LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2006--Continued
... Having said that, what happened today is an amendment came to the floor under circumstances that I am not going to go through right now, but it is such that it really would take us off the course of this bipartisan lobbying reform bill. We had discussions as to whether that amendment would be withdrawn, but it was made very clear after the discussions among us that the amendment would come back later tonight, tomorrow, or the next day.
So, that was the big attention getter of the day, but not the only interesting stuff. Quite a bit can be and is done without oral presentation from the floor of the Senate.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am placing a hold on the nomination of James Lambright to serve as President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.All of that was outside of oral presentation. The next item in the record was performed "live," if anybody was watching.I am placing this hold on Mr. Lambright's nomination as I have major concerns regarding the issuance of taxpayer-guaranteed credit insurance by the Export-Import Bank for an ethanol project in Trinidad and Tobago. Specifically, the approval of this credit insurance by the Export-Import Bank appeared to violate the Bank's authorizing statute. ...
As of 2004, when the credit guarantees for Angostura were approved, the total 100 million gallon capacity of the Angostura facility was nearly 4 percent of U.S. production. This amount clearly exceeded the 1-percent threshold for causing substantial injury to the U.S. ethanol industry as spelled out in the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute.
So it appeared to me that the approval of credit guarantees for Angostura by the Export-Import Bank violated the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute.
Moreover, as the amount financed by the Export-Import Bank was less than $10 million, no detailed economic impact analysis was conducted by the bank. I note that the amount approved by the Export-Import Bank $9.87 million was conveniently just below this $10 million threshold amount. ...
As the Export-Import Bank currently does not have an inspector general, I am placing a hold on Mr. Lambert's nomination until such time that I receive assurances from him that, first, the Export-Import Bank will act quickly to appoint an inspector general, and second, that Mr. Lambert will see that the inspector general will indeed provide a written analysis on the credit insurance approval within 90 days of appointment.
17 . HOLD ON LAMBRIGHT NOMINATION -- (Senate - March 08, 2006)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Five-Seven handgun, manufactured by the Belgian firearms company FN Herstal, was reportedly designed to provide military and law enforcement personnel with a small, lightweight, and accurate pistol that was powerful enough to kill or seriously injure enemies wearing body armor. A January 2000 cover article in the popular American Handgunner magazine profiled the handgun and predicted that, for obvious reasons, ``neither the gun nor the ammunition will ever be sold to civilians.'' Unfortunately, the American Handgunner article was wrong and FN Herstal made the Five-Seven pistol available to private buyers in 2004. These high-powered firearms clearly have no sporting purpose and pose a great threat to the lives of our law enforcement officers. ...In response to concerns raised by law enforcement officials and others, Senator Lautenberg, introduced the Protect Law Enforcement Armor Act on March 3, 2005. Among other things, this legislation would prohibit the sale of the Five-Seven pistol and its ammunition to private buyers in the U.S. Unfortunately, despite the continuing threat posed by this high-powered pistol to our law enforcement officers, Senator Lautenberg's legislation has yet to receive any consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the year since it was introduced.
20 . THE FIVE-SEVEN PISTOL -- (Senate - March 08, 2006)
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, we must enact my legislation, S. 2305, to repeal a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act that will require people applying or reapplying for Medicaid to verify their citizenship with a U.S. passport or birth certificate. Congress must act to repeal this shortsighted policy before it goes into effect July 1, 2006, because it will create barriers to health care, is unnecessary, and will be an administrative burden to implement.21 . REPEAL OF MEDICAID VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy for placing S. 1902, the Children and Media Research Advancement Act CAMRA, on the calendar today. I appreciate their commitment to the health and welfare of children. I also want to thank the co-sponsors of this bill, Senators Lieberman, Brownback, Santorum, Bayh, and Durbin for being such leaders on this issue, and my fellow Senators on the HELP Committee for their support for this legislation. In addition, I thank two groups, Common Sense Media and Children Now, for raising awareness of the effect media has on children's development. And finally, I express thanks to two researchers, Dr. Michael Rich of the Center for Media and Child Health at Harvard University Medical School, and Dr. Sandy Calvert of the Children's Digital Media Center at Georgetown University. Both Dr. Rich and Dr. Calvert have been great advocates for CAMRA. I thank them for sharing their expertise and support. ...That is why the CAMRA Act--the Children and the Media Research Advancement Act--is so important. This bill will create a single, coordinated research program at the Center for Disease Control. It will study the impact of electronic media on children's--including very young children and infants'--cognitive, social and physical development. ...
[Keep an eye out for this one.]
24 . CHILDREN AND MEDIA RESEARCH ADVANCEMENT ACT
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated:EC-5953. A communication from the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to funding an additional project (enhanced blast tandem warhead) for the Foreign Comparative Testing (FCT) Program for Fiscal Year 2006; to the Committee on Armed Services.
35 . EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS -- (Senate - March 08, 2006)
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: ...By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Carper, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 2388. A bill to establish a National Commission on the Infrastructure of the United States; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. ...
By Mr. Nelson of Florida:
S. 2391. A bill to improve the security of the United States borders and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 2392. A bill to promote the empowerment of women in Afghanistan; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
37 . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. NELSON of Florida:S. 2391. A bill to improve the security of the United States borders and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a critically important bill for our national security and our immigration system. My bill is called the Border Operations Reform and Development of Electronic Remote Surveillance Act of 2006--otherwise known as the BORDERS Act. Getting control over our Nation's borders is an indispensable part of comprehensive immigration reform.
The Government of the United States has the obligation to protect its citizens and to provide for homeland security by having control of its international borders. Yet, as we all know, our borders with Mexico and Canada are broken. Recognizing the dangerous situation that this presents, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission strongly recommended that the United States get operational control of its borders.
Because our Government has not succeeded in adequately securing our borders, millions of undocumented aliens have crossed into our country without our Government's permission. Despite our best efforts to have an orderly system of immigration and to control who enters the United States, it's simply not working. ...
First, and most importantly, this bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to implement state-of-the-art surveillance technology programs to build an integrated ``virtual fence'' at our borders. ...
The BORDERS Act also requires the Department of Homeland Security to greatly increase its detention facilities. Right now, the border patrol is sometimes able to capture illegal aliens sneaking into the country, but we simply lack enough facilities to detain them. In some border areas, up to 90 percent of captured aliens are released, and only 10 percent of them show up for their immigration court hearing. Does that make sense? ...
Another important section of this bill recognizes that in order for our detention mechanisms to function effectively, we need uniform detention standards. ...
Finally, the BORDERS Act of 2006 authorizes the Federal Government to reimburse States that incur the financial burden of detaining illegal aliens. It is unfair of us to expect the States to shoulder this huge cost by themselves.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 366, H.R. 683. ... to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 with respect to dilution by blurring or tarnishment. ...Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 683), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
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.