[Republic]

Thank you for clarifying what happened between Nichols and that witch. I love that he challanged her on specifics, especially when she got her dig in at Bush 1 and then could not exlain the circumstances or ANY specifics of that same bill she was speaking of...heheh.

She must really be seething underneath at Nichols. Hillary hates to be made to look stupid, probably more than most since she has spent years convincing the press thru her war room flying monkeys that she is 'the smartest woman in the world'. Nichols exposed her, easily. She must have looked very uninformed, unprepared, unintellectual and extremely bent on NOT answering the questions.

My guess-she will try to get even, and fail. She and her husband are being exposed for the snakes they are with such rapidity no one can keep up. I am astounded at the venom so many feel towards this very cruel failed ex first lady.

My hubby was listening to Gary Aldrich on a radio station out of Anderson, Indiana yesterday, sorry he does not remember who the host was/is, and Gary said that America is going to be shocked when the real stuff the klintons did to our nation starts pouring out over the next ten years.

The klintons may have pelosi ( btw-did you see hillary try to grab the headlines away from pelosi yesterday? WHAT A STITCH!) as the minority leader in the house, and daschle in the senate, but they are going to have no one to defend the indefensible when the barrage really begins.

[syriacus]

The transcript is now at

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:9:./temp/~r107uNKU1k::

Here is an exerpt, it's hard to follow, and unfortunately you can't hear the way the words were delivered. You also can't see the expressions on her face, which revealed her confusion. She's smart enough to choose words that will look all right in the Congressional record.

I'm posting my comments about certain sentences in a reply to this reply.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 3009 -- (Senate - November 14, 2002)

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I intend to offer a unanimous consent request that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of the extension of unemployment insurance. As the dialog between the distinguished Senators from Pennsylvania and Michigan just illustrated, this is an issue that had bipartisan support--really, nonpartisan support.

   There are 2.2 million workers who have exhausted or are about to exhaust their benefits without finding a job. Ignoring these people, especially as we are about to enter into the Thanksgiving-Christmas holiday season, will not make them go away. It is not going to help them automatically find a job because they have been out there diligently looking.

   The fact is, we don't have enough jobs right now.(wordy introduction)[snip]

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. CLINTON. Certainly.

Mr. NICKLES. I wish to ask her a question before she asks unanimous consent. Just to clarify the record, to be correct, I believe she stated her proposal is a 13-week extension. Is her proposal S. 3009?

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, it is.

Mr. NICKLES. Just to clarify, I believe that is not a 13-week extension; it is a 26-week extension.
[snip]

   I wanted to make sure you are aware that the bill you are trying to pass by unanimous consent, S. 3009, is not a 13-week extension, but it is a 26-week extension and costs $17.1 billion. A simple 13-week extension costs less than half of that. I wanted to make those few facts known before I object to the Senator's request.

Mrs. CLINTON. I appreciate the Senator's factual intervention.(1) It is the same proposal that was used in the early 1990s to extend unemployment insurance under the first President Bush. It is what has historically been done. Now, some people benefit more because of the circumstances in which they find themselves. Indeed, when we passed the only extension of unemployment insurance back in, I think, March, there were a couple of States that had been very hard hit that were given additional benefits.

[snip]

Ms. CANTWELL. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.

Ms. CANTWELL. I am joining the Senator in support of bringing this up under a unanimous consent. The issue the House is looking at is simply another 5-week extension. So, yes, maybe more for the holidays people will think they have 5 more weeks. But the issue is that expansion of this unemployment program is about helping people through a tough economic time. We don't expect that it is going to get any better January 1 or January 31.

   Frankly, I think if you listen to Alan Greenspan and everybody else in the administration, they don't expect it is going to get any better in the next 5 months. So the point is that we want to have a stimulus for those local economies.
(etc. wordiness)
 [snip]

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. CLINTON. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. SARBANES. I commend the Senator for offering this unanimous consent request. Secondly, in response to the points raised by the Senator from Oklahoma, as I understand it, the bill provides for an additional 13 weeks. If you have exhausted your benefits, having drawn the basic 26 weeks, and the additional 13 weeks that we have provided for in March of this year, you could then draw another 13 weeks. So for that limited group would, in fact, get 52 weeks. I point out that that limited group is unemployed. They have not been able to get a job in a labor market that is not working. (etc more wordiness) [snip]

What the Senator is seeking to do was done, I must point out, under President Bush the first. For the life of me, I don't understand why President Bush the second won't agree to and support this measure.
[snip wordiness]
There are many who think the existing system is inadequate. She is not seeking to correct that, as I understand it. We are only seeking to do this 13-week extension. I certainly think we ought to do that before this Congress leaves.

I thank the Senator.

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. NICKLES. I want to make a statement. Too many times it happens--the Senator yields to me to ask a question, not to make a speech--many times in the debate people have yielded the floor as if they control the floor. (2) The Presiding Officer controls the floor. The Senator can yield for a question but not yield for a speech. I did not hear a question the last time. I do not want to get too technical, but we ought to adhere to normal Senate rules.

Now my question: The Senator is trying to pass a bill. I stated that the bill is a 26-week extension, not a 13-week extension. I keep hearing people say it is a 13-week extension. That is not factually correct. It is a 26-week extension. If you just entered into the program, am I not correct, you can exhaust your 26 weeks of State benefits and qualify for 26 weeks of 100 percent Federal benefits? It is a 26-week extension which doubles the cost of the program. It is a $17 billion program. Am I not correct--I want to be factually correct. If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected. But am I not correct it is really a 26-week extension for anybody entering into the program? So people could qualify for 26 weeks of State benefits and 26 weeks of Federal benefits if the Senator's bill should pass?

 Mrs. CLINTON. With all due respect to my friend from Oklahoma, that is not what the bill says. The bill provides 13 weeks for those first coming into the system, but for people who have already exhausted their 13 weeks, it does provide an additional 13 weeks, which adds up to 26 weeks.

   Maybe it is not artfully enough drafted. I certainly have the greatest respect for my colleague from Oklahoma, who is one of the premier legislators in this body, but if it is not clear, then I will be more than happy to write it so it is absolutely clear.(3)

The intention is, as I have stated, to provide an additional 13 weeks to people who have exhausted their benefits. To echo the eloquent comments of my colleagues from Washington and Maryland, there are lots of people out there. The Senator from Washington read the numbers. Let me give you one quick example.

  The intention is, as I have stated, to provide an additional 13 weeks to people who have exhausted their benefits. To echo the eloquent comments of my colleagues from Washington and Maryland, there are lots of people out there. The Senator from Washington read the numbers. Let me give you one quick example.

   Mr. NICKLES. I want an answer to my question.

   Mrs. CLINTON. The answer is the bill does not provide for those first coming into the system 26 weeks. It does provide an additional 13 weeks so that those who have exhausted their first 13 weeks can have 26 weeks.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield further for a question?

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.

Mr. NICKLES. I believe the bill offers 26 additional weeks for anybody who just came into the system.

Mrs. CLINTON. We would be more than happy to clarify that. That is not the way the bill was intended. It certainly is not the way it was meant to be drafted. If there is any--

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?

Mrs. CLINTON. Let me finish my answer. You get to ask, I  get to answer. My answer is, it is intended to be a 13-week extension. If there needs to be a cutoff point so it is absolutely clear that this is the intention, we stand ready to do that.

(Much Clintonian wordiness here.)

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?

   Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I will be more than happy to yield.

   Mr. NICKLES. The proposal before us still has the adjusted insured unemployment rate to where it includes the following paragraph:


   Except that individuals exhausting their right to regular compensation during the most recent three calendar months for which data is available before the close of the period for which such rate is being determined shall be taken into account as if they were individuals filing claims for regular compensation for each week during the period for which the rate is being determined.


Basically that means if someone even completes the system and gets a job, they still are counted as unemployed; is that still in this legislation?

[big snip of back and forth]

Mrs. CLINTON. [snip] we went back to our last recession under the previous President Bush. We thought that would be a good model as to what was done five times to extend unemployment insurance benefits.  
[snip]

If it was in some way misguided to rely upon the first Bush administration's extension of unemployment insurance, then we are going to say we did the best we could to look at what had been effective and worked in the past.

Mr. NICKLES. So the answer to my question is that language is still in the bill?

Mrs. CLINTON.We have the same language that was used in the first Bush recession. Now we are in the second Bush recession. We are using the same language. It worked then. (4)

   Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield again? So that language is still in there. I will tell my colleague, I will never agree to this language passing. I will also tell my colleague, if she is politicizing this, talking about the first Bush recession and the second Bush recession, the first compensation package did not have the same triggers.[snip]

I also ask my colleague, are not the triggers different under this proposal than the compensation packages that passed in the early nineties?

Mrs. CLINTON. It is the same kind of trigger, I am advised.

  Mr. NICKLES. There are different triggers. More States would qualify for greater benefits; is that not correct?

   Mrs. CLINTON. It includes States with concentrated high unemployment. That is true, there is a slightly different trigger. Again, I was not around in 1991 and 1992, so I cannot speak to what the Senator would or would not have done.(5)[snip]