Senate Coverage -- (March '06)

Thank you for the PING!

Peter King being interviewed....dang...

Until Mitch McConnell came on...closing down the Senate I beleive...until MONday..

Senate is adjourned to 10 am Monday

They didn't get much done today so not much damage was done to my beloved Republic. Now the Republican hopefuls will all rush to Memphis.

Until Mitch McConnell came on...closing down the Senate I beleive...until MONday..

Yup. In between, Lugar brought up and passed on a voice vote H.R.1053, dealing with trade with the Ukraine. S.632 on the same subject was postponed indefinitely.

McConnell passed S.Res. 396 and S.Res. 397, and advised that the first vote next week will be at 5:30 PM on Monday, Nomination at Calendar No. 520, Leo Maury Gordon to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade.

Seems the ethics and lobbying bill just died on the vine. It's hanging out there just like the asbestos bill is - failed cloture, and can't get UC to proceed to vote on the matter.

I missed the number of the budget bill, but that will be the subject on Monday. There are a few Senate bills that include the word "Budget," including the line item veto bill. Not to say that what the Senate plans to take up on Monday is a Senate bill - just as likely it is a House bill.

McConnel also noted a need to raise the debt ceiling soon, and that there would be a number of late nights next week, before the Senate takes off for its March recess.

Dang...I heard McConnell also...but I can't remember what kind of Budget deal it was...I don't remember hearing line-item veto...but, I didn't hear all of what he said.

OOPSY....Fox showed Abizaid saying that some of the negativity about the ports deal was because of the UAE being an Arab country...

Mark Levin is NOT HAPPY....saying Generals aren't right all of the time.

I beg Mark's pardon....but I would BET that a lot of the knee-jerkitis was because it was the United ARAB Emirites...and the other part was political opportunism.

I heard McConnell also...but I can't remember what kind of Budget deal it was...

I think it's the annual budget process.

By Richard Cowan - Reuters
Thursday, March 9, 2006; 5:47 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate Budget Committee narrowly approved a fiscal 2007 budget plan on Thursday that would substantially hike defense funding and provoke another confrontation over whether to open a protected area of Alaska to oil and gas drilling.
On a partisan 11-10 vote, the committee sent the budget to the Senate floor, where debate could begin on Monday. The budget blueprint is nonbinding but it does shape congressional spending decisions.
Senators craft FY07 budget with big defense tab

Some vague background at ...

http://budget.senate.gov/republican/Reconciliationfacts.htm
http://budget.senate.gov/democratic

Should be more than a few good battles in all that. ANWR, and something referred to as "paygo," which I take as a euphamism for raising taxes - because Congress is incapable of killing or significantly reducing any programs.

Senate Shuffle - March 9, 2006

A day of expressed disappointment, as the Senate's plans to improve transparency in its official actions and try to cleanse the patina of corruption were scuttled by Schumer and the Democrats' decision to elevate the DPW buyout of P&O to the point of "most important priority" -- NOW!

Reid started it off, and the selections below are in my usual style of trying to find concise (if not terse) statements that accurately reflect the speaker's intentions and sentiment, as well as statements that reflect poorly-reported yet relevant "facts."

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to suggest to Democratic Senators to oppose cloture today. I will say to all assembled that the vote under the rules is to occur tomorrow. If the majority leader decides he wants to do it today, we would not oppose even having that vote today. We are going to oppose cloture. The reason being, if you read newspapers today, you will see the House of Representatives, by a 99-percent margin in the supplemental appropriations bill, put a provision in that basically bans the Dubai Ports situation. I agree with that. ...
I received a 1 1/2 -page memo from the Commissioner of Ports of New Jersey and New York. He said in his memo that whoever got this contract was going to be all powerful. They would control the perimeters of the ports. They would control who worked in the port. They would do background checks of the people who work there. The American people could sense this. ...
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I express my disappointment at the words of the Democratic leader urging our colleagues to vote against cloture on the lobbying reform measure. ...
Public confidence in Congress is very low right now, maybe at record low levels. This legislation helps to promote public confidence in the work we do and the decisions we make. This should not be a partisan issue, and it has not been until the Democrat leader came to the Senate to urge his colleagues to oppose cloture. ...
I am not saying the issue raised by the Senator from New York is not an important issue. ... That is an important issue. But it is not the issue before the Senate today. The issue before the Senate today is the lobbying reform measure, two bipartisan bills that have been put together that will help strengthen and promote public confidence in our decisions. Let's get on with the task before the Senate. ...
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her very eloquent remarks. [Lots of glad-handing snipped] ...
I have never come to the Senate in the years I have been here to talk about this institution. ...
I see a degree of partisanship and bitterness and mistrust permeating this place which is not good not only for the institution of the Senate but for the United States of America. ...
Now we cannot move forward in the simplest fashion on issues that we are all in agreement on, much less come to some agreement as to how we can address an issue that is more contentious. ...
What we need to do here is for the leaders on both sides, with others, to sit down and map out an agenda we can all agree to. But to bring this process of ethics and lobbying reform and earmark reform to a halt for the sake of an amendment that has nothing whatsoever to do with the businesses at hand, which is highly contentious, I think is not doing the people's business.
9 . PORT SECURITY -- (Senate - March 09, 2006)
Mr. SCHUMER ... We have to act now. There are a variety of ways to act. I have chosen one. There is no monopoly on that. Maybe there is another. And certainly there are a variety of procedures. We can vote, as Senator Reid offered, as a separate standing bill today, tomorrow, early next week. We can do it as part of this bill. We can make an arrangement and make it somewhere else. But the voice of the Senate must be heard. Lobbying reform is important, yes, but so is security. Lobbying reform has some time urgency, given everything we have seen, yes, but not more time urgency than this deal which might engender our security.
Let me be clear: We can do both. This Chamber can walk and chew gum at the same time. ...
Mr. DORGAN ... At least part of the reason in the Senate that we can't sink our teeth into these issues is because we are prevented from offering amendments to do so. My colleague has offered an amendment on a controversial issue, I understand. The issue of whether a United Arab Emirates company called Dubai Ports World should be managing America's seaports. Should they manage some of America's largest seaports? Is this issue controversial? I suppose it is. Is it urgent that the Congress address this? Of course, it is urgent. The House Appropriations Committee, controlled by the President's own political party, yesterday by a vote of 62 to 2 slapped an amendment on an emergency supplemental appropriations bill designed to provide money for the Department of Defense and for Hurricane Katrina recovery. They slapped an amendment on there to stop this ports deal. Good for them. So there has been offered in the Senate an amendment to stop the ports deal. All of a sudden the Senate is stopped, dead cold in its tracks. Why is it that a proposal such as this becomes a set of brake pads for the Senate? Who decides it should shut things down because someone offers an amendment to stop this takeover of the management of U.S. ports by a company from the United Arab Emirates? Why wouldn't we vote on it? How about yesterday when it was offered, after people got over being upset that we had to deal with it, how about voting on it and then moving ahead? ...
But there is nothing that suggests that just because an amendment was offered dealing with Dubai Ports World, it ought to shut down the Senate. It didn't shut down the House yesterday when Congressman Lewis offered it to an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. They just voted. Why have we not voted? Senator Frist, I guess, has decided we won't vote on it. So we will stop the Senate cold in its tracks. We will pull down on the side of the road and hang out for while.
Does that make any sense to anybody? This doesn't make sense to me. Seventy, seventy-five percent of the American people--polls tell us--think that it is stark raving nuts to have a company owned by the United Arab Emirates manage our major ports. I know we have some people who are the elitists in Washington and who think they know better than all of the American people. They think they have greater wisdom and the American people just don't get it. These elitists think that the American people are isolationist xenophobes and cannot see over the horizon. So we have people in Washington who think this deal with Dubai Ports World is fine. It is not fine with me. It is not fine with 70, 75 percent of the American people.
If we get a vote on it in the Senate, it will not be fine with an overwhelming majority of the Senate. The question is, Will we be able to do in the Senate what the House did? That is, have an opportunity to vote on this proposition: Should a company owned by the United Arab Emirates be managing America's ports? ...
I want to make one other point. I don't know how this is going to turn out, but I am on the Appropriations Committee, and on the emergency supplemental bill, when we mark that up, I intend to offer the identical amendment that a Congressman offered in the House Appropriations Committee so that we can have a vote on it and go to conference with the House on the emergency supplement with identical amendments. I think the Senate should pass an identical amendment in the emergency supplemental, no matter how this comes out, as a backstop. I intend to offer that in the future when we mark up the emergency supplemental bill.
11 . LEGISLATIVE PROCESS -- (Senate - March 09, 2006)
Mr. COLEMAN ... I am introducing this morning a bill that will require the Department of Homeland Security to put in place a system to screen each and every one of the cargo containers that come into this country. That is the kind of security we need. In addition to that--and I believe the UAE deal represents a concern, even though security is being done, certainly, at home by the Coast Guard and Homeland Security, even though the reality is that cargo security starts at overseas ports, it is not when it comes into our waters--we have, I believe, 41 agreements called the ``Container Security Initiative.'' We have the Department of Homeland Security sitting side by side in foreign countries with personnel who run their ports looking at every manifest that comes in, making some judgments about what is inspected and not inspected. At the same time, we have an agreement with private security, CT-PAT, Partnership Against Terrorism. We work, then, on the private side to have measures in place that will increase the measure of safety and security that we have regarding these containers coming in.
The bottom line is, I am concerned if we have a foreign entity that is owning or operating an American port, that they would have access, then, to our security procedures. That raises concerns.
The other reality is that 80 percent of the terminals in the United States are foreign owned--either foreign companies, or in some cases--by the way, I say to my colleague from California, there are four port operations on the west coast that are foreign owned by foreign countries--three by Singapore and one by China.
Do we feel any safer that China owns a major American port operation? The reality is there hasn't been a problem, by the way, until this deal. Now we hear there is a crisis. Now we have to hear we have to act today.
What is happening today is it is about politics.
16 . PORT SECURITY -- (Senate - March 09, 2006)

Senator Coleman's comments summarize and correct a number of false beliefs.

We do not screen 100% of incoming containers - we use targeted screening
20% of terminals in the US are US owned. There ARE US companies who are capable of undertaking this kind of work.
China has one, single port operation on the West Coast. I'd like to know what it is and in particular, if it is the Stevedoring Services of America at Long Beach.

I'll add one more observation, that being the fact that 70 to 75% of the American people are against the deal, and that being used by the House and Senate as the justification to act quickly. That Congress can be so easily led by an ill-informed populace should seriously frighten the reader.

Mr. COBURN. ... I must express I am extremely disappointed with the Senator from New York in terms of the assurances he gave me that this stunt would not be pulled. But, in fact, he has done that. I do not know if that is because the Appropriations Committee in the House decided to run real quick and get it done and getting beat in terms of the headlines or he has some new information none of the rest of us knows that requires the immediate passing of this today. It does not. This is a political stunt. ...
The United States has no national port authority. Jurisdiction is shared by Federal, State, and local governments, but it does not lessen the power of the U.S. Congress to have control over this. We do need to make some changes. The CFIUS program is wrong. My fellow colleague from Oklahoma has a wonderful bill in terms of reforming that. Senator Shelby is changing some things. The fact is, not a good job in looking at some of these things has been done, and we have shirked our responsibility as the Senate in looking at it. But to run now to an amendment on the basis of pure political expediency does a disservice to this country in the long run. We ought not to do it. We can do it, and lots of Americans would be happy, but the consequences that will follow are grave, not only the consequences with this act but the consequences of the behavior of this body in the future, if we so act that way. ...

Mr. LIEBERMAN. ... I am going to vote against cloture for two reasons. First, this bill was on the floor and open to amendment for less than a day before the motion for cloture was filed. That simply is not enough time for the kind of debate and amendment for this bill, so critical to our institution's credibility with the American people, to be debated. ...
We have some excellent provisions already in the legislation before us--disclosure, prohibitions--but there is a second step we have to take to make sure these new standards we are setting become real, and that is to provide for enforcement and oversight. These are critical elements of reform that require us to establish what we have called an independent Office of Public Integrity. ...
I want to say a final word about the amendment offered by the Senator from New York on the Dubai Ports deal. Apparently, there is such a strong feeling among the American people about this, as reflected now in the overwhelming vote in the House Appropriations Committee and the offering of this amendment, that I fear we are rushing to respond to that feeling rather than being leaders.
Here is the point I want to make. I would oppose this amendment as it has been put before us today. The most fundamental reason is this: This does something that we are not supposed to do in America, where we believe in the rule of law. We appeal to other nations around the world to follow the rule of law as a condition of a modern society. It is the underpinning of the kind of freedom and opportunity that we believe in our heart is right in this country.
18 . DUBAI -- (Senate - March 09, 2006)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the courtesy of my colleague. I believe what I am going to say, since the Senator is addressing the issue of the DP World port terminal transaction, might bear on his remarks.
Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to work very closely with the White House and the administration, with our distinguished leader, Bill Frist, and several other Senators on this question.
I have had the opportunity to meet and work with representatives of the DP World company who came to the United States for the purposes of sharing the importance of this contract and their perspective.
I shall not recount the events that have occurred here in the last few days. But I have just been contacted by Edward Bilkie, chief operating officer, of DP World. And in an effort to get this message to all interested parties as quickly as possible, I indicated a willingness to read a press release that is now being issued by DP World. It reads as follows:

Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve this relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operations of P&O Ports North America, Inc. to a United States entity. This decision is based on an understanding that DP World will have time to effect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss. We look forward to working with the Department of the Treasury to implement this decision.
His Highness Sheikh Muhammad al-Maktum, Prime Minister of UAE, has directed the company, in the interest of the UAE and the United States, to take this action as the appropriate course to take in the future.

Mr. President, I would say that I started the day with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General Abizaid--discussing with them not the politics strictly--but potential security implications. It is not just the security of the United States with which we are concerned, but that of the free world, for much of the world is engaged in this war on terrorism. ...
20 . PORT SECURITY -- (Senate - March 09, 2006)
Mr. FRIST. ... The distinguished Democratic leader said just 48 hours ago to the effect of insisting that Democrats would not try to stall this lobbying reform bill by offering unrelated amendments, saying that:

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 ..... we are not going to do it on this legislation.

That was 48 hours ago, and then in the last 24 hours directly contradicted the assurances he made on Tuesday when he said:

I believe that this lobbying reform is important. I believe that we need to do everything we can to help restore integrity to what we do here in Washington. But having said that, Mr. President, I think it would have been absolutely wrong for the Senate not to take action yesterday on the most important issue the American people see today, and that is port security.

[I recall noticing exactly that ;-)]
21 . ETHICS REFORM -- (Senate - March 09, 2006)
Pending:
Wyden/Grassley amendment No. 2944, to establish as a standing order of the Senate a requirement that a Senator publicly disclose a notice of intent to object to proceeding to any measure or matter.
Schumer amendment No. 2959 (to amendment No. 2944), to prohibit any foreign-government-owned or controlled company 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 facility at a United States port. ...
The legislative clerk read as follows:
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 2349: an original bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process. ... The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 2349, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006, shall be brought to a close? ...
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows: [Roll Call Vote 36]
23 . LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2006
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I switched my vote from an ``aye'' to a ``no'' vote for procedural reasons so that I would have the opportunity as leader to bring the cloture vote back at some time in the future. I did support cloture, but for procedural reasons I switched that vote to a ``no.''
What that means is that over the next several days, after talking to the four managers who are working together in a cooperative, bipartisan way, once we can put together a group of amendments and packages of amendments, I, in all likelihood, will bring that cloture vote back, and we will be on the glidepath to completing this very important bill.
Mr. DODD. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. FRIST. Very quickly, and then I have a statement to make.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wonder if the majority leader might give us an idea because we would like to get back to the bill. As one of the managers, my hope would be that we can get back to it right away. I would like to see us clean up this bill and get it done as soon as possible.
Could you give us some sense of when you think we might do that? I know there are a lot of matters to deal with, but this is very important.
Mr. FRIST. I would bring it back right now if I had the votes. We need to have the managers working together and stressing the importance that when we start our business, we need to finish it. This is no fault of the managers. They have done a superb job. We had a totally unrelated amendment injected, I believe, for partisan purposes. I say that and put it aside. ...
Mr. DODD. I thank the leader. I was suggesting that, if necessary, if we could agree to an hour or two after this bill is considered--and you may be right that we would not have to--then we might get to this reform bill today. That is all it would take to do so. We have taken the position that extraneous matters should not be on the bill.
My fear is--and I say this having been around here a quarter of a century--once you bump this off, the budget issue next week, immigration, and a recess for a week or two, we will not get back to this. If we don't stick to this, other matters can take over--another explosion somewhere in the world--and this institution finds itself dealing with a issue that would not be the lobbying reform issue. I have seen it happen so many times. Here is an opportunity, I say with all due respect, to give us that assurance, if necessary, and let us get back to the bill.
Mr. FRIST. With all due respect, there is no reason to give that assurance now. This is on a glidepath, based on what we have heard in the last 2 hours, to take care of itself. Again, it is through no fault of the managers of lobbying reform--on either side of the aisle--that we are where we are today. It is because we have had this extraneous issue injected into the system, which gummed up the works, and it is being resolved as we speak.
I just wish that amendment had not come to the floor. We were the first to put lobbying reform on the Congress's agenda. We were first to hold hearings, under the leadership of the distinguished chairmen. We were the first to mark up and the first to act, all as a result of the majority deciding that this is an important issue. The issue of Government reform is a key agenda item to help restore trust and faith in our Government.
I have to say that yesterday was a spectacular display, with the Senator from New York taking advantage of the goodwill that had been generated as we were moving forward together, which has led us to the point that we have had the cloture vote today.
I have been crystal clear throughout that when it comes to the port deal, Congress needs all of the facts. We don't have all of the facts. ...

Mr. CHAMBLISS. ... With the passage of this bill, what changes? What changes is that we are taking the Ethics Committee letter that I have, that Senator Reid has, whose sons are lobbyists, that Senator Lott has, whose son is a lobbyist, and at least a dozen or 15 other Members of this body have, and it codifies the terms of the letters. All of a sudden, it makes it subject not only to a potential $200,000 fine, but criminal sanctions as well.
Figure this: We are in a very partisan political time in this country. Because of partisanship, often without merit, ethics charges can often--and it happens more on the House side, than it does over here--fly back and forth. For example, if I am at dinner with my son and somebody happens to be at a table next to me and think they hear conversation which they believe to be improper, but which was in fact not improper at all.
All of a sudden I am thrown in a situation where I have to defend myself, not before the Ethics Committee but from a civil sanction, as well as a potential criminal sanction. To say that can't happen in today's climate, I think we are kidding ourselves.
The same thing could happen to every other Member here. And I don't know of any Member who has ever violated the ethical rule relative to lobbying on the part of spouses or children. ...
This week, a group called Political Money Line issued a statement in which they said-- ... Political Money Line is, according to its statement, a company that provides comprehensive campaign finance and lobbying data to more than 500 clients, ranging from trade groups to the national political parties ... that this Member of the Senate was the No. 1 user of corporate aircraft of all active Senators; that from the period 2001 through the 2005, I had flown over 60 times in corporate aircraft, according to the disclosure that I had filed, and that I had to pay in excess of $100,000. To make it exact, they said $101,795 for utilization of corporate aircraft. ...
The fact of the matter is that they said, according to their calculations, I had reported 60 reimbursements for use of corporate aircraft. In fact, they now have agreed that only 17 of those trips should have been credited to me. The other 43 reimbursements should have been credited to another or other Members of the Senate. And of those 17, on one occasion--I used corporate aircraft for a fundraiser in Florida--I sent three Members of the Senate down there and paid their way. That is a customary thing that happens. I flew commercial, but I paid their way. ...
Now the genie is out of the bottle, and the New York Times story has gone all over the country. It is in U.S. News & World Report. How do you get the genie back in the bottle? Well, you don't, and that is the unfortunate part about this. There was some irresponsible activity on the part of this group that, frankly, will be a political problem because the 527 operated by former Democratic National Committee individuals has already taken a shot at me as a result of this. ...
In any event, instead of being the No. 1 active Member of the Senate relative to utilization of corporate aircraft, according to their calculations, I would be No. 28. Under their calculations, instead of $101,000, it should have been $18,000. That is how egregious this situation has become.
25 . ORDER OF PROCEDURE -- (Senate - March 09, 2006)
Mr. SPECTER. ... I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my comments, letters that I sent to the President as far back as the Clinton administration, and that I sent to President Bush, outlining the judge-made laws which have given OPEC immunity under our antitrust laws be printed in the RECORD. ...
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am going to be putting into the RECORD at conclusion of my statement--again I ask unanimous consent--a proposed modification of the U.S. antitrust laws. ...
This Act may be cited as the ``Petroleum Industry Antitrust Act of 2006''. ...
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am not introducing the bill today, but I am putting it forward so that my colleagues may consider it and it may be considered by the witnesses who are going to be testifying before the Judiciary Committee on March 14. I am putting it in the public view to solicit comments and to solicit responses and ideas as to the effectiveness or propriety or desirability of such legislation. I do so tentatively because it is a very complicated subject, and there have been relatively few modifications of the antitrust laws in the United States. ...
This bill would eliminate the judge-made doctrines that prevent OPEC members from being sued for violation of the antitrust laws by conspiring to fix the price of crude oil. Section 1 of the bill amends the Sherman Act prohibiting oil and gas companies from diverting, exporting, or refusing to sell existing supplies of crude oil, refined products, or natural gas, with the primary intent of raising prices or creating a shortage in the market where the existing supplies are located or intended to be shipped.
Section 2 amends the Clayton act prohibiting the acquisition of an oil or gas company or, any assets of such a company, when the acquisition would lessen competition. Current law allows the antitrust agencies to challenge any acquisition that may ``substantially'' lessen competition. This change would significantly increase the level of scrutiny received by any large merger between competitors in the oil and gas industry.
Section 3 requires the Government Accountability Office to evaluate whether divestitures required by the Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'') or the Department of Department (``DOJ'') with regard to oil and gas industry mergers have been effective in restoring competition. Once the study is completed, the FTC and the DOJ must consider whether any additional steps are necessary to restore competition, including further divestiture or the unraveling of some mergers.
Section 4 requires that the FTC and the DOJ establish a joint federal-state task force to examine information sharing and other anticompetitive results of recent consolidation in the oil and gas industry.
These provisions might well be extended in a final legislative proposal to go beyond oil and gas, but that is the thrust of what we are considering as we prepare for the Judiciary Committee hearing on March 14.
27 . PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ANTITRUST ACT OF 2006
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, yesterday, I filed the Online Freedom of Speech Act as an amendment to the lobbying reform bill.
This morning, the House Administration Committee will mark up identical legislation. We expect the House to act as early as next week to pass this vital protection of free speech. ...
And today, it is bloggers whom we now have to protect.
There are some who, out of fear or shortsightedness, wish to restrict the ability of our modern-day Thomas Paines to express political views on the World Wide Web.
They seek to monitor and regulate political speech under the guise of ``campaign finance reform.'' They argue that unfettered political expression on the Internet is dangerous, especially during the highly charged election season.
[Ref: S.Amt.2955]
31 . ONLINE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated: ...
By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Ms. MURKOWSKI):
S. Res. 396. A resolution congratulating Rosey Fletcher for her Olympic bronze medal in the parallel giant slalom; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. DAYTON):
S. Res. 397. A resolution recognizing the history and achievements of the curling community of Bemidji, Minnesota; considered and agreed to.
50 . SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President I rise to introduce legislation that would address the concerns related to the shipping of live birds through the United States Postal Service. I introduced a similar bill during the 107th Congress with bi-partisan support. It was included in Public Law 107-67.
This bill should close some loopholes that some of the airlines are using to avoid the timely shipping of day-old baby chicks.
52 . STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. on Monday, March 13, the Senate begin consideration of the budget resolution, if available; provided further that the time until 11:30 be equally divided; and I further ask that the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business from the hours of 11:30 to 1:30 p.m. with that time equally divided.
I further ask unanimous consent that at 1:30 the Senate resume consideration of the budget resolution.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that on Friday, March 10, it be in order for the Budget Committee to file reported legislation from 11 a.m. to 12 noon.
60 . ORDER OF PROCEDURE -- (Senate - March 09, 2006)
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 396 which was submitted earlier today. ...
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res. 397 which was submitted earlier today. ...
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, March 13, the Senate proceed to executive session and an immediate vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 520, Leo Gordon to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade; provided further that following that vote the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session. [Links omitted]

Monday, Mar 13, 2006
10:00 a.m.: Convene and begin consideration of the Budget Resolution.

Previous Meeting

Thursday, Mar 9, 2006

The Senate convened at 9:30 a.m. and adjourned at 5:43 p.m. One record vote was taken.

LIVE THREAD FOR TODAY.

LIVE Senate Thread: C-Span 2; 10:00 am EST....Feingold's motion to censure President Bush

Are you watching this speech by Conrad and his charts about the US debt

Are you watching this speech by Conrad and his charts about the US debt

Conrad - Debt is the issue

Gregg - The DEMs like to spend ("I'd be more sympathetic to the "debt" argument but the other side offers amendments that increase spending")

Did you catch Frists' opening? I missed it. Curious if he gave a timeframe for getting to the vote on this bill.

Did you catch Frists' opening? I missed it.

No, I missed it also

My daughters had friends sleep over again last night .. the 2nd one this weekend

I can't wait till the all go back to school tomorrow

Collins up about foreign investments

Collins up introducing a bill to modify or replace Exon-Florio / CFIUS process.

Arging to broaden the application of the process, what condtitutes "threat to national security." She charges that CFIUS is looking on ly at investment and cash flow, and not on technology transfer to security ramifications.

Sometimes, the agencies don't follow the intent of the law - so in reaction the Senate decides to change the law?

so in reaction the Senate decides to change the law?

That's all they know how to do

She wants a make new committee ??

Collins is having a coughing fit(has a cold) and has to end her comments early

That's [change the law] all they know how to do

That's all they are empowered to do. Dang - Collins swallowed down the wrong pipe.

Anyway, did't listen to all of her presentation - been wandering around the office - but she calls for an intelligence presence in CFIUS. Dodd called for CA to have a seat at the table, yesterday on FoxNews.

Since CFIUS was created (and updated) through an Executive Order, they don't have the authority to dissolve it,do they?