Skip to comments.Senate Coverage -- (February '06)
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 Founders' Constitution
THE WHITE HOUSE
THE WAR DEPARTMENT (aka The Dept. of Defense)
LIVE DoD Briefings
NEWSEUM: TODAY'S FRONT PAGES
I didn't listen to him this morning. Must have been preoccupied with work or soemthing. I'll try to keep an ear on what he says, but would not be surprised if he backs down from his objection to even taking up debate.
I've never seen a cloture motion filed for the purpose of taking up debate. I wonder how many times this has happened?
AFAIK, Feingold is the only Senator still in opposition. I still haven't wrapped my brain around the details of his objections.
S.852: A bill to create a fair and efficient system to resolve claims of victims for bodily injury caused by asbestos exposure, and for other purposes.
Result: Agreed to, 98-1, with 1 not voting.
H.R.10: To enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.
Result: Agreed to, 93-0, with 7 not voting.
H.R.2646: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow tax-free expenditures from education individual retirement accounts for elementary and secondary school expenses, to increase the maximum annual amount of contributions to such accounts, and for other purposes.
Result: Agreed to, 74-24 with 2 not voting.
S.1936: A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
Result: Agreed to, 65-34, with 1 not voting.
S.RES.227: An original resolution to authorize the use of additional funds for salaries and expenses of the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, and for other purposes.
Result: Vote on the first cloture motion failed, 53-47
Vote on the second cloture motion failed, 53-47
Vote on the third cloture motion failed, 51-46
Vote on the fifth cloture motion failed, 53-47
Vote on the fourth cloture motion failed, 52-46
Vote on the sixth cloture motion failed, 51-46
Seventh and eighth cloture motions on the motion to proceed were withdrawn.
Question for you...back when the Dems controlled the Senate for years, and had huge majorities..( I think one year it was 70-30 or so, was floor time EQUALLY divided between the majority and the minority?
That would be a tough one to research, lots of gruntwork! But I think the protocol is that time is equally divided between the PROPONENT an OPPONENT sides of a measure, amendment or motion, and opponent/proponent does not devolve to party line.
The opponent/proponent line can be fun to watch in practice, as a Senator can crossover from the nominal party line on any given issue.
If a time agreement is operating, the debate time is divided between the majority and the minority managers for the bill. The floor managers are usually the chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, of the committee which reported the bill to the Senate floor. Senators must seek time to speak from their floor manager who manages the time for his/her side. During this period of "controlled time" in the Senate, you will hear rare references to time limitations, for example, "the Senator is recognized for 15 minutes," or "I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Kansas."
controlled time - When a unanimous consent agreement limits the time for debate on a bill or other measure and places it under the control of bill floor managers, the time is said to be controlled. Each manager then allows any Senator to participate in debate by yielding a specified amount of time to the Senator.
yield time - When the Senate has reached a unanimous consent agreement limiting the time for debate and placing it under the control of floor managers, a Senator may be recognized to speak only if a manager yields the Senator a specified amount of time to speak. The Chair then recognizes the Senator receiving the time, not the manager who yields the time, to hold the floor.Any limitation on debate (and hence impacting the division of time) can occur only within a unanimous consent agreement. Riddicks talks of debate under a UC Agreement, and uses both terms "time divided and controlled" (p. 1323) and "time equally divided" (p. 1324 and following). If a new amendment is introduced within the time agreement, Riddicks says at p. 1323, "if an amendment is considered under its own time limit, the time consumed from that particular sublimit of time will be equally divided and subtracted from the overall time available to each side on the measure."
The general arrangement of this section of Riddicks reads as though the time could, by unanimous consent, be divided other than equally. For example, at page 1327, "when the Senate is considering a matter under a unanimous consent agreement which limits and assigns control of time, and no Senator yields time, the time expiring and otherwise available for debate will be deducted proportionately from those controlling the time.
Ahh ... a short and sweet authoritative source. All emphasis herein is mine.
Debate Time. Consent agreements that include limitations on time available for debate are also called "time agreements." A time agreement may establish an overall limit on debate of a measure, or may regulate only a certain day or portion of consideration. Usually, it specifies a length of time for debate of a measure, "equally divided and controlled" by the majority and minority bill managers. Occasionally, other Senators may also control blocks of this "bill time," or it may be divided unequally among Senators controlling it. When time on a question is controlled, a Senator can be recognized to speak on that question only when a colleague who controls time first yields a portion of it to the Senator. Also, until all time on a question is used or yielded back, no vote can occur on the question, nor can an amendment or motion to table be offered.Here is a link to CRS 98-225, the general case referred to in the publication linked above.
How Unanimous Consent Agreements Regulate Senate Floor Action
Richard S. Beth - Congressional Research Service
As to how the actual practice breaks down, and in particular whether the DEMs took advantage of their majority status to shortchange the minority from debate time, I don't know.
Many thanks for the info...BTW, man could you ever imagine Ev Dirksen on C-span...Lawdie, what a show that would be..
At a time of his choosing (as leader, not because he made the motion to reconsider), Senator Frist will bring up the failed motion to waive, for reconsideration of the vote.
Leahy is now introducing something referred to a "President's Program" - urging Presindet Bush to come clean with the American people.
Leahy says that the President is engaged in a coverup of the illegality of the NSA program. Rumors that the dems were backing down on this were apparently wrong.
Byrd seems to be on a similar subject (surveillance on citizens and keeping of files thereon) - not sure where he's headed with this, but it sounds to be in the same general camp as Leahy.
Yes, it looks like a bit of a tag team effort. Wow, I just saw the printing on one of his pages. It's huge.
I was just coming here to report on the goings on on the Senate floor right now..
Byrd says THOUSANDS of Americans have been illegaly wiretapped by Bush??
And of course Leahy insists on saying "Domestic spying"...
I missed the program that you said that Leahy suggested so the President could come clean...
What did that involve...bamboo shoots under the nails??
His voice sounds strong. He was willing to walk out of chambers and defer the speech until later, because he has another appointment that he would not miss.
I find it interesting that Byrd will go on and on about all of these wiretaps that Bush supposedly has done on just regular folks..talking to their friends and family....
And insinutating that Bush would go after anyone who makes a phone call and says anything negative about the war in Iraq...he says how AWFUL that scenario would be that Americans would have to worry about everything they said during a phone call, e-mail...etc...
BUT, these same people get INCENSED when President Bush and Alberto Gonzalez refuse to turn over President Bush's personal memos, e-mails, and phone records...
Just think about how awful it would be if no one could speak "truth to power" without wondering if their memo, e-mail or phone call would be made public and disected by the idiot media..and Congress.
He also said something about bringing his proposed legislation (which would have the administration submit the surveillance program to the FISA Court for a ruling) to the floor tomorrow. That "to the floor" only means introducing it, not that it would be up for debate or anything.
I thought Specter was a little testy in his response to Sen. Roberts suggestion that legislation, if any, should come from Roberts' committee.
Turf war. That could be entertaining.
Have you listened to any of the Able Danger hearing??
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.