Wednesday, December 21, 2005

December 21, 2005



Summary (so far).

VP Cheney cast a tie-breaking vote in favor of the budget bill. The bill passed 51-50. This bill has to go back to the House because some points of order were raised against it. The parliamentarian ruled on this. The latest word is that the House will be back tomorrow.

Then debate on ANWR and the underlying defense appropriations bill resumed. At 12:13 the Senate voted on cloture, an action to end debate on the defense appropriations bill. The cloture motion was defeated, 44-56. Drilling opponents have successfully filibustered the version of the defense appropriations bill that includes ANWR drilling.

The three Republicans voting against cloture were Sen Chafee (RI), Sen DeWine (OH), and Sen Frist (TN). Sen Frist changed his vote to no because voting no allows him to remain in command of the bill and retain the option of bringing it back for reconsideration. It is possible that the Senate (and now the House) will reconsider the version of the defense appropriations bill that did not include the drilling provision, i.e. the original conference report.

Four democrats voted for cloture: Sen Landrieu (LA), Sen Inouye (HI), Sen Akaka (HI), and Sen Nelson (NB). This means that ANWR drilling proponents had 57 votes: 53 of 55 Republicans and 4 of 45 Democrats. Even if all Republicans had voted for the bill drilling proponents still would have been one vote short of the 60 required. That vote ended at 12:40 or so.

A quorum call began at 12:42 and an extended quorum call spanned the afternoon. A bunch of senators came onto the floor at about 17:15.

Eventually, the Senators approved a resolution stripping the ANWR language from the Defense Appropriations bill. The vote was 48-45, with Republican senators Coleman, Collins, DeWine, Lugar, Smith, Snow, and Specter voting in favor of nixing the provision. The Senators then quickly approved the ANWR-free version of the bill, 93-0.

C-SPAN2 and the AP reported that the Senators amongst themselves agreed to a six-month extension of the Patriot Act. At 11:04 the Senate is still in session but it looks like they are done after tonight.

The most profound speech of the day was that of Ted Stevens, preceding the successful vote to strip ANWR language from the defense appropriations bill. Knowing he was likely to lose the vote, he showed anger and sorrow. He listed the groups tht would enjoy the plenty offered by ANWR drilling. He could not believe that, knowing the benefits presented, senators would still vote to delete it. He wondered if anyone had really read his bill. He didn't think so. How it provided for borrowing authority in the case of emergency. How it would provide for border security, both north and south. How it would yield low-income heating assistance. How it would help New Orleans. Have you people toured New Orleans for two days like I have? Have you seen barges as big as this room on top of houses?

Sen Stevens said goodbye to the senate tonight. He made a beautiful speech and it was sad. That his colleagues were willing to break his heart to honor a principal is a reason for optimism. There's now a link to an earlier version of this speech on the main C-SPAN page, under "Recent Programs."

Today's Action from the Floor

The Senate began voting on the Budget / Deficit Reduction bill at 10:15 est. The bill cuts $40b from the budget.

The votes were 50 yea, 50 nay. Vice President Cheney, who resides as President of the Senate, voted the deciding vote in favor of the bill. The bill passed 51-50. The Constitution provides that the Vice President is the President of the Senate and can cast tie-breaking votes.

[11:20]

The Senate is now debating ANWR. Sen Murkowski (AK) spoke in favor. Sen Feinstein (CA) spoke in opposition. Sen Domenici (NM) is speaking in favor.

Sen Byrd is speaking in opposition. He is holding up a copy of the Senate Rules. He says, if cloture is invoked, Senators have discussed raising a Rule 28 point of order...asking whether Senate should overturn the ruling of the chair, to negate Rule 28 in effect, in order to retain the ANWR provisions in the conference report...suspending Rule 28 to negate it and then restoring it...I abhor, I abhor, I abhor this idea...I love this man from Alaska, but I love the Senate better...I love him...I feel that the blood in my veins is the same as his blood...I came here to uphold the constitution and I would die upholding that oath...I cannot go down that road, I told him so, I love him but I love the senate more... If sustained today, this process could be used again and again to destroy the senate rules...Senators should realize that if Rule 28 is negated in the next hour it will not be restored again until the President of the US signs the bill into law, which could be as long as 10 days...which could affect the Patriot Act...Sen Byrd runs out of time...will Cantwell give it to him?...Reid gets five more minutes for each side...my friend is standing up for his state, but I am standing up for the Senate...

Sen Gregg (NH) rises in favor. [11:37] He is saying that if this bill doesn't pass cloture, the low-income heating assistance won't pass either.

Sens. Cochran, Lott, and Landrieu are speaking in favor. Sen Stevens is going to have the last speech before the cloture vote. Now Sen Kerry is speaking. [11:48] Has as passionate a feeling against drilling in ANWR as the senators have in favor of it. But that's not the debate here today. The debate is about what the Sen from West Virginia was talking about...every once in awhile here in the Senate we have a gut check...we all want the money for border security, for the troops, for hurricane assistance...there's only one thing that's stopping us here...breaking the senate rules for a matter of expediency...Sen Byrd is audible in the background speaking in affirmation...sounded like he said, "Amen"...we should do it according to the rules of the United States Senate...if we say no to cloture now this can be stripped out...if it means an extra day to preserve the rules of the senate, we should take that extra day...

One minute for the Senator from Michigan, Sen Stabenow...she's opposed to it...

Sen Cantwell (WA) rises to urge the senators to reject this cynical ploy...no one could condone such a blatant measure or procedure...strongly object to the arctic drilling provisions on the merits...regardless of the merits...object to the way this provision has been added to the legislation, they are a violation of the senate rules...not in house or senate conference bill, language was changed after senators had signed their names to the conference report...she has some large boards with quotes from newspapers...referred to NYT as a newspaper from New York...we are not going to be blackmailed into voting for this legislation...one supporter of drilling called it a politically toxic rider...

Sen Lieberman says he has opposed ANWR drilling in the past...perpetuated dangerous myth that we could drill our way out...that was seventeen years ago...we have had good, fair fights on this issue...

[12:03]

Sen Durbin rises to speak against ANWR drilling.

Sen Stevens says he hopes the good lord will help him hold his temper...he is mad at Durbin for something...said he asked him for his apology once, but he would not accept his apology now...he says he knows the Arctic, that they don't know the Arctic at all...a committment made to him by 2 Democratic senators in 1980...he says he drew the order creating the wildlife range in 1958...that oil and gas exploration was included in it...subject to env impact statement being approved by house and senate...the minority has filibustered it every time but once, the one time it was passed President Clinton vetoed it...

***

[17:33]

There are a bunch of senators in the chamber, visible on C-SPAN2. They are milling about, holding pow-wows with their respective leaders. The speculation is that there is going to be a vote on the defense authorization bill. We are waiting for word from Sen Frist.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

December 20, 2005


Summary. The day for votes is tomorrow. Today was speeches. The senators didn't vote on any of the three pending pieces of legislation and nothing happened on the Patriot Act Reauthorization. Cheney is flying home from the Middle East in the event that he would need to cast a tie-breaking vote.

Reid and Frist agreed that Wednesday would be the last day of action in the Senate.

It still looks like the Repubs have a better chance of passing the budget bill than they do of passing the defense spending/ANWR bill.

Monday, December 19, 2005

December 19, 2005



Summary. Three record votes were taken. The Senate voted to proceed on i.e. debate three bills:

1. Medicaid Reconciliation Act of 2005 a.k.a. the Omnibus Deficit Reduction bill. 86 yeas, 9 nays, 5 no votes.
2. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 95 yeas, 5 no votes.
3. Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006. 94 yeas, 1 nay, 5 no votes.

There are two distinct Defense bills out there.

The Defense Appropriations bills includes provisions for:

a. Aid for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, $29b
b. Bird flu funding, $3.79b
c. Liability limitations for pharmaceutical companies producing flu vaccines
d. Drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
e. $453.3b for the Pentagon, including $50b for Iraq/Afghanistan
f. Funds for low-income families facing high heating costs
g. A 1% across-the-board cut in all federal programs except veterans adminstration

The Defense Authorization Act has more to do with military policy. It includes the anti-torture language McCain fought for, and it includes language limiting the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Medicaid Bill includes deficit reduction measures. These include a law forcing all television signals to go digital by 2009. The government is freeing up the analog spectrum in order to sell it for $10b to parties including wireless companies. Part of the freed up spectrum will be reserved for emergency responder communication. What this means is that TV that cannot receive digital signals will become obsolete in 2009. No Democrat in the House supported this bill.

The three votes today were similar in nature, approving motions to proceed on each respective piece of underlying legislation. None of these votes passed any type of legislation.

Reid forecasted that a cloture vote on the Defense Appropriations bill could occur Wednesday, although Tuesday is not out of the question. Some uncertainty remains as to whether the Democrats will filibuster this bill; Sen Lieberman indicated he would be willing to filibuster, which makes a filibuster sound possible. Yet, Sen Stevens has added language to the ANWR provision directing a portion of the ANWR leasing payments to the gulf states hit hard by the hurricanes. Finally, some unusual procedural matters surroung the bill due to the way Sen Stevens went about attaching the ANWR language to it. However, only 50 votes will be needed to get past these procedural obstacles and move on to the cloture vote. Tomorrow morning beginning at 9:45 est, the Senate will resume consideration of the Omnibus Deficit Reduction bill.

Without further ado, some of this morning's action:

[9:33 est]

Sen MaJ Leader Frist (TN) comes on. Sen Murkowski (AK) is presiding officer. Frist recounts House passage of the Defense spending bill and the deficit reduction conference report. He says he'll be working to schedule a vote on defense authorization bill. There will be ten hours of debate on the deficit reduction conference report. No roll call votes this morning but very possibly after lunch. Now he's talking about having hosted Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in the Capitol. Something called the Support our Scouts Act of 2005, which is in one of the defense bills...tremendous contributions of scouting...congressional charter in 1910...tune out at [9:37]...he suggests absence of a quorum at 9:43...

Sen Feingold (WI) ends the quorum call at 9:57. He is addressing the omnibus department of defense appropriations bill and how drilling in the Arctic has been attached to it. Drilling in ANWR has no relation to the defense bill, he says. He is reading from Senate web page on rules. Conference committees, reports: conferees should not insert into their report matters not agreed to...You can break the rules because you will immediately reinstate the rules...is this really the message the Senate wants to send to the public...just attach language to an important funding bill...is this the precedent we really want to set?...how will we respond when our constituents ask us...I hope when it comes time for the Senate to go on record that a majority will take the position that these rules are worth defending...

[10:02]
Ted Stevens (AK) now comes on...he talks about ANWR and how the Senate has passed it before but Clinton vetoed it...we don't filibuster national security issues, he says...the constant filibuster during this decade...cites how much oil the department of defense uses...says this is a bill about domestic oil production...I am not trying to overturn the rules...we disagree that oil is not needed in national security...the ones who vote for this are the ones who believe in national security...national security defense appropriations act of 2005...something about the right to vote to overturn the conference chair ruling...

[10:11]
Feingold is back on. He says Senate has never passed the version of ANWR in this bill. He yields the floor.

Stevens is back on. If it was possible to have appeal of chair...that's not breaking the rules...we took bill that passed house and added to it the Katrina provisions...it's the version of it that passed the House before...says Feingold's comments come close to breaking the rules themselves...if there is a ruling, we do not want to disturb the rules is the language we used...something about worrying that if chair is overruled the rule might be nixed so saying you aren't trying to take Rule 28 out of the rules making clear that we don't want the rule to be nixed...says Min Leader Reid came up with this maneuver...I am not violating the rules...I'm putting my faith in the senate to support national security as they support the conference report...I'm not offering an amendment to the bill...I'm managing the conference report [meaning it won't need 60 votes, will need only 50]...only 1.5m acres open for development...

Reid makes parliamentary inquiry...would this set a precedent...almost impossible to enforce?...this is clearly what is being attempted by Stevens, wrong...another parliamentarian fired over a matter similar to this...this is a defense approp bill...to wave flag of national defense...it'll be ten years before we get any oil...why not do it the right way?...voted against it being inserted in reconciliation...he won there...but to do it this way is wrong...if the rules are inconvenient let's just go around them...this has never been done before...contempt for the rule of this body...Lord Acton was right...absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely...ethical lapses in this town...we'll vote on cloture probably on Wed...then we'll vote on upholding the ruling of the chair...

[10:22]

Stevens back on. I have maintained a constant position...

Reid Says, If the defense bill is filibustered will be quickly modified and passed...he says it was Stevens who said that to a newspaper yesterday...no one voting on this point of order will stop the defense bill...this bill will go forward...we have a continuining resolution to take us til the end of the year...we could go home today...as soon as the new session convenes he could get this through...

Stevens, I do believe we can go back to the conference to help the department of defense...

Reid says possibility of two cloture votes back to back so he says we could agree to a time limit on this legislation...

Now, Sen from WA, Maria Cantwell...concerned about this process...because this legislation from the House, there are senators who have great concerns over this measure...would like to wrap this up and go home and spend time with my family...could go home today if Senator would take this language of the bill...in fact it is being help up...controversial provision, House couldn't get it passed with it in there...colleague says he's not holding up the process when it's very clear he's holding up the process...arguing about this for 25 years...notion that this is about national security is unclear to me...what's national security is passing a clean DoD bill...safety for pipelines in Iraq...we're talking about something we're doing today...we should strip this ANWR language out and pass this bill...it's in someone's interests, it's in Alaska's interests...I get why the state of AK cares so much, of course AK would hold up the legislative process...get ANWR in by hook or crook...get off of overdependence on oil...diversify and move forward...affordable energy rates in this country...overruling the parliamentarian (our judge here)...voting to overturn the parliamentarian and then quickly reinstating the rule...legislative blackmail...must-pass bill...asking members to overrule the parliamentarian...and then go back and say the parliamentarian was right?...how many rules are we willing to break?...American people want us to send the money to the troops and go home...let's give the troops the money they need to make sure that 800,000 bpd are protected right now...

Sen Dorgan (ND). When we debate this issue (Wednesday), those who believe it violates the rules of the Senate will raise a point of order. Indeed my colleague has a right to pursue it but it will require violating and changing the rules of the Senate. It abrogates other rights of the Senate. Rules are rules. If we decide that we can stick anything unrelated on this conference report...there's an arrogance there that does not befit the Senate...

Sunday, December 18, 2005

December 18, 2005



At 18:16 Senate session has started. C-SPAN2 says that there will be only general speeched today, no votes. Also, CSPAN-2 stated that the GOP leadership was planning to attach oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to the Defense spending bill. The Defense spending bill is pending in the Senate.

But at 18:22 the Senate is still in a quorum call...

At 18:47 Senate is still in quorum call...CSPAN-2 is doing a picture-and-picture showing House Democrats reacting to the holdup on the Defense Spending Bill. They are discussing how the House Repub leadership is attaching to the bill a provision changing campaign finance law...Senate and House conferees signed the report but House dems have withdrawn their sigs...Senate might have withfrawn its sigs...

Quorum call continues...[17:10]...[18:25]...

At [20:37] Senate adjourns until tomorrow morning at 9:30 e.s.t. Frist said he expects senate will have conference reports back from House.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

December 17, 2005


Sen Maj leader Frist (TN) is on at 16:04. He says that some senators are in conference and we'll know more about the schedule for the next couple days when we hear back from those conferees. He said he'd have more information at the close of business today.

Ted Stevens is presiding officer.

Sen. Min Leader Reid (NV) is recognized. Reid is asking whether we know whether Warner and Levin withdrew their signatures from the Defense Approp Bill. Frist said, Well we don't have a House vote on it yet or we might not even know whether the House inserted the ANWR provision.

Frist has said there won't be votes today. What about tomorrow says Reid? Frist says we'll come in late and things will depend on the House between now and then. Likely no roll call votes tomorrow but Frist can't say for sure. Frist says Monday will be the day for roll call votes, a very very full day. Votes Monday morning. 10 am eastern time.

Frist wants to makes a brief statement on an issue that requires action before the senate leaves. Potential pandemic of avian influenza, the so-called bird flu....[14:09] Referencing the so-called Spanish Flu, even though it probably started in Kansas. If past is prologue world is probably overdue for flu pandemic. We are drastically underprepared for that...

[14:25] Sen Cornyn (TX) is talking about the PATRIOT Act and saying we need to go back and look at the replays and news accounts of Sept 11th and then we'd see how talk about how the gov't is Big Brother is just fantasy. Aren't these the kinds of tools that we would want our law enforcement to have, to keep us safe? ...Need to understand what is at stake here.... Clock is ticking...time running out...America potentially endangered... What has changed since that 98-1 vote in the senate, when the PATRIOT Act was passed in the first place? Are there examples of abuses of the PATRIOT Act? No. ...conferees have done dead-level best to strike the right balance between security and liberties...what has changed since October 2001 to lead our colleagues to say some of these provisions are not useful? Has the threat of international terrorism gone away? He then lists suspected al Qaeda attacks around the globe since Sept 2001: Shoe Bomber, Explosion at Tunisian synagogue, Karachi car bombing (11 French dead), bomb explosion outside U.S. consulate in Karachi, boat crashing into oil tanker off yemen, Bali night club bombings (202 dead mostly Australian), Mombassa Kenya suicide attack, May 2003 suicide bombing in Riyadh, May 2003 bombings in Casablanca, suicide car bombings at Marriot in Jakart, Nov 2003 explosion in Riyadh killing 17, Nov 2003 suicide car bombers attacking Istanbul synagogues, Nov 2003 truck bombs in Istanbul near London bank, Nov 2004 bombings in Madrid killing 202 during rush hour, May 2004 attack at oil office in Khobar, June 2004 PaulJohnson executed in Riyadh, Sept. 2004 car bombs outside Aus embassy in jakarta, attacks at US consul in Jedda, July 2005 London attacks killing 52, 22 killed by suicide bombs in Bali, Nov 2005 57 killed in Amman Jordan.

Mr. President I go through this list not to bore my listeners but to recount the threat that still exists. Examples of what could happen on our own soil if we are let our guard down, as we did before Sept 11th. I'll remind my colleagues of what we've been able to do because we have been on guard, because we have been on the offensive, disrupting the ability of terrorists to train, recruit, export...America has not sustained another terrorist attack on our own soil since Sept 2001...some have said it's a matter of if and not when...[14:35]...there've been at least 10 serious Al Qaeda plots interrupted including 3 inside US since Sept 11th...May 2002 plot with plans interrupted...mid 2003 plot interrupted to hit targets on east coast using commercial airplanes...(time expired, he gets 15 more minutes)...then there's the Jose Padilla plot that involved blowing up an apt. building with a dirty bomb...plot on urban target in UK...plot in Karachi...plot at Heathrow...plot with Arabian gulf shipping...tourist site plot by Al Qaeda plot in 2003...disrupted thanks to concerted effort of law enforcement personnel...what could those blocking P-A be thinking?...he notes others on floor who want to speak...wants to note one red herring being raised...the NYT article...Bush auth. use of intercepted messages via NSA...NYT suggesting this was a big secret way to threaten the civ libs of americans...fact it, congress was consulted at least 12 times since Pres has auth these interceptions...not solely in U.S. but from known links to intl terrorism in U.S. and overseas...not coincidence that NYT released this story before right before cloture vote...author of this article had turned in a book three months ago...urgent story tied to a book sale...by james risen...about to be published in coming weeks...endangered in part because newspaper...marketing campaign for selling a book...hysteria over U.S. P-A...people have not focused on hard fought attempts to balance by hammering out thoughtful, useful positions...

Sen Sessions (AL) asks if the senator will yield for questions... Sessions is talking about how the Senate got most of its provisions...[16:47]...Sen Cornyn: I would say to my friend from AL that he's absolutely correct...

Friday, December 16, 2005

December 16, 2005


[10:38 est]

Sen. Inhofe (OK) was talking about immigration and the border.

Now Sen. Specter is talking about PATRIOT Act and cloture vote. The cloture vote requires 60 senators to cut off debate on the Act. It sounds like there will be an hour of debate before the cloture vote. He wishes the Senate had the last word, but it doesn't, we have a bicameral system. He thanks Rep. Sensenbresser (WI) for working through very difficult proceedings. The House has supported Conference Report (CR) by a 77-vote majority. Specter and Sen. Leahy (VT) have a very close relationship and have worked through major legislation this year: Class Action Reform, Data Privacy, Asbestos Reform, confirming the new AG.

When the debate started earlier this week I invited Senators to the floor to state what their concerns were. I called senators. Let's have a discussion, I said. Let's describe the bill so people can understand it. I don't think we've been successful in conveying to the public and even to the senators: what this bill provides. One paper said: the bill gives the gov't too much power to demand records w/o oversight. The writer of this editorial is mixing § 215 and the national security letters (NSLs). One of the other most prominent papers talked about 30,000 NSLs being issued. This is not true because the facts are classified. I've been trying to get the Justice Dept. to let us know what the facts are. Senators can't find that out in a classified briefing. The big tough problem has been acquainting people with what this bill provides. I'm confident that when this is accomplished, this bill will be passed...balance between law enforcement and civil liberties...has been achieved...not as good as the Specter/Leahy bill that passed the Senate, but it has balance...NSLs were not created by another act...PATRIOT Act provides for judicial review of NSLs if they are unreasonable...then you have the delayed notice warrants...special permission to law enf. officials that they don't have to notify the target that a search was performed...where there are reasons to keep it secret b/c notice would impede an investigation...how long before notice should be givem?...4th circ. court of appeals has said that 45 days would be adequate...

Mr. President, the senate's not in order.

The senate will be in order. The senator from Pennsylvania:

I thought that 30 days was a tremendous achievement. The House came down from 180, we came up 23 days from 7. Then there's the roving wiretaps...showing required that person will resist wiretap...also, the sunset provisions...House wanted 10 years...Senate, four years...House would have done seven, we held fast at four...required assistance from White House, President was personally involved in the four year decision...if you don't get your facts from the newspapers, from reading the statute, a fair conclusion is that it's balanced...it's nice to be the heroes of the editorial pages, makes for great hometown reading...if you're the chairman of the cmte. you've got to carve out a consensus...my job was to work through what is the art of the possible...the six senators who opposed the bill issued their press releases not just before the ink was dry on the CR but before the ink was finished on the CR...they weren't waiting to see what the CR had to say...you can do that if you're a dissenter but if you're the chairman...the President has taken the position that the CR goes as far as he wants to go...President said today he will not sign a 3-month extension...if I'm given instructions to negotiate, I'll go back and negotiate...but the President means business...in voting on cloture, voting up or down...this body will be faced with choosing the CR or having the PATRIOT Act expire...although we're a considerable distance from 9/11 this bill continues to be necessary...protections for airports and seaports...this bill is a balanced bill.

Mr President how much time remains of my half an hour?

8 min 30 seconds, 8 min 30 seconds

Mr President, I yield the floor.

Now, the Sen from VT, Mr. Leahy:

I'm concerned because we've come so close in this. Sen Salazar (CO) yesterday noted how it was the anniversary of the signing of the Bill of Rights. He then lists the senators who have said they will join filibuster.... I do read the papers. Today's NYT says that over last 3 years, under a secret order gov't has been secretly monitoring international calls and e-mails...this eavesdropping is not overseen by any court, not authorized by any statute, not authorized by the PATRIOT Act...Leahy is shouting...Mr. President it is time to have some checks and balances in this country! Let's have checks and balances, not secret orders and torture...when I voted for that PATRIOT Act I didn't think it was ideal but I was in favor of most of it...that's why I voted for the bipartisan bill in July...our goal is to mend, not end, the PATRIOT Act...none of us want it to expire...those who want it to expire rather than fix it are playing a dangerous game...America can do better and we should...those are shared American goals...how to balance security, liberty, gov't accountability...the most fundamental dilemma before this congress...no one should doubt that those voting either way on cloture do not want security...we are more American in asking for checks and balances...

The Sen. from Nevada, Mr. Reid:
gets in quickly, outside the time for the PATRIOT Act debate to introduce a few things. He is speaking rapidly.

Sen from MS, Mr. Lott:

He introduces a bill to be introduced, an act to amend internal Rev. Code. An amendment at the desk. Expresses appreciation to Baucus, Grassley, Landrieu, Vitter, Hutchison, Cornyn for being involved. $8b in tax incentives and relief to people in Hurricane areas. Hopes House will approve and send to President.

Now Sen. Reid (NV). Gives Landrieu 90 seconds. She thanks Lott, Grassley, Baucus thanks. This package will help to stand up Gulf Coast so it can help country on trade and energy... Asks for consent to submit longer statement to the record. Without objection, so ordered.

Leahy, are we back on PATRIOT Act. Yes. 3 min. to senior senator from Idaho, Sen. Craig.

Now, Sen. Craig (ID). The Patriot's Act is one of those pieces of legislation that will last beyond what we do here. It is a very precarious balancing act between rights of free citizen and community protected by law...that's why a year and a half ago we said here were some provisions that stepped us back...I cannot nor will I vote for cloture today because I am here to defend what the senate has already done...we will not adjourn this session of congress without a patriot's act in place...whether it is 3 month extension or the senator from pennsylvania sitting down like he said...safe and secure in a free environment...

He yields the floor. Who yields time? Leahy yields three minutes to Sen Kennedy (MA):

This morning Americans wake up to more startling reports...admninstration has been spying without warrants...administration isn't responding to reports but says, Trust us, we follow the law...this administration...there is no accountability, there is no oversight...in 1970s big brother spied on our country and we stood up and said no...we established the FISA court to set up protections...this gov't thinks it is above those protections...the entire world is watching to see how we strike the balance between security and liberty...our country is at a new low...he references watergate...references CIA leak case...now it's suggested Pres. may know identity of source...when did Pres know and when did he know it...who else know the whole facts: Cheney, Gonzalez, Ashcroft?

Now Specter. Wants to address newspaper saying "Bush lets Gov't Spy." If you read fine print, and it takes a lot of reading, it seems there were some level heads in the executive branch...how in 2004 some level heads got program suspended...there's no doubt that this is inappropriate...there were some parts of system which were working...but it's inexcusable to have spying without court surveillance...this will be a matter for oversight in the new year...high priority item...not very good publicity on morning when we are voting on PATRIOT Act...some suggested news story was held back for more than a year...I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that...

Now, Sen Sununu (NH). This wasn't a last-minute effort to derail legislation, these are concerns that go back two years ago. I met with AG right after he was confirmed, as long as a year ago, so did Sen. Craig...specific recommendations on just a few areas of the PATRIOT Act...I heard nothing in response to those requests...we have heard nothing in response to our suggestions...we're here today with a CR that has many shortcomings...a § 215 standard that's too broad, that could be abused...no review on NSLs, only be overturned by a showing of bad faith...[how can you show bad faith when the evidence on the other side is classified?]...could have a chilling effect on individuals' right to counsel...how would right to counsel undermine ability to fight terrorism..be mindful of Franklin's words: those who would give up liberty in support of security deserve neither, will get neither...

Now Levin (MI)...we had a very balanced bill that left the senate...what's come back is a bill containing provisions that could sweep into net of a fishing expedition the most private...§ 215 example...library and medical records...foreign intelligence investigations....under new provision gov't need to describe a particular person (to which investigation is linked)...gov't could seek all of a doctor's records if it was said one of doctor's patients had sent money overseas...so all of that doctor's records are relevant to a foreign terrorist investigation...all of a library's records are subject if there are allegations that one unidentified person was supposedly using a computer there...our Senate bill required a showing that records sought pertained to a foreign power or agent thereof or were relevant to activities of an agent...or pertained to person in contact with a foreign power...those protections are missing from the CR

Leahy asks for five minutes being added to each side. Four minutes to Feingold (WI):

he thanks the senior senator from VT...references NYT story...gov't tapping international phones and e-mail without wiretap orders...to eavesdrop without court order based on some evidence that subjects are terrorists, spies, or criminals...we have an obligation to get to the bottom ofthis...I don't want to hear again from anyone that this gov't can be trusted...ought to send chill down spine of every senator and American...let's look at § 215...Ashcroft said some changes would be justified...NSL provisions are also deficient...no requriment that records sought there have tie to some terrorist or spy...after what NYT reported this morning, no one should be comfortable with the gov't having this kind of unreviewable power...let's talk about what will happen if cloture vote does not pass...reauthorization bills will easily pass...shameful to suggest we would let it expire...proud to be part of bipartisan coalition working to strengthen civil liberties...we have taken a stand...this is not a partisan issue...we can come together to give gov't tools it needs...and we can do it before the end of this year...but we first must vote no on cloture...

Leahy yields 3 min for distinguished Sen from CO, Mr. Salazar:

As a former AG, I am very familiar with needs of law enforcement...I support extending expiring powers while at same time adding checks...that's what the senate bill did...that's what CR could have done if it simply addressed modest concerns we laid out...these concerns were not met by the CR...references Wash Post and NYT...president authorization for NSA to eavesdrop...monitoring without approval of judge or secret FISA court...if we needed a wakeup call, this is a wakeup call...legislation to extend current patriot act for 3 months...I urge my colleagues to vote against invoking cloture...

Yields the floor. Specter now. Just to correct some of the mistatements. This bill is not understood by Senators. I don't sugges they're doing it deliberately, but they don't know the bill. Something about NSL recipient having to tell FBI identity of his lawyer...not true...(reads from the CR)...under § 215 it's not true that there does not have to be a connection to ...CR says court has to make a determination thate there is a terrorism invest. involving a foreigner in order to carry on the investigation...not the case that there's no review of NSL...lawyer can challenge in court under a showing that it's not reasonable...but different if national security issue, then it's showing of bad faith...Let me yield at this time for Sen from Arizona

Now, Jon Kyl (AZ). Commends Specter. Says how it is a partisan issue and that we need to reauthorize PATRIOT Act. No time to stretch this out. This act will expire on Dec. 31st. You either vote to reauthorize or not. I doubt that there is anyone who would deny that we need to tear down wall between law enforcement and intelligence. God help us if there is some kind of terrorist act when we are not protected by the P-A and the P-A could have protected us against it. The House has made tremendous concessions toward us. I found it difficult myself to sign CR, frankly because we make it hard for Law Enforcement to do its job...if you vote against cloture you are voting agains the P-A...the American people will hold us accountable...

Specter wants to ask Kyl a question. President has said he won't sign an extension. How this means there won't be a P-A after Dec 31st...what will the effect be on the fight against terrorism?

Kyl: we know of two stories 9/11 commission wrote. One story about the Wall, a problem we corrected w/ PATRIOT Act. It is possible that with PATRIOT Act part or all of 9-11 might not have happened. One agency knew X, another agency knew Y...had we been able, knowing they were connected to al Qaeda and were making plane reservations...we've been free from attack thanks to things like the P-A...our people need this tool to protect us...

Specter asks consent that mandatory quorum rule be waived...

Now Leahy: mentions how this admininstration's justice dept had information might've stopped 9-11...

Now Schumer: I went to bed last night unsure of how to vote. On one hand wants to give credit to Specter. Better than current law is the CR, better than House version. But today's revelation that gov't listened in on thousands of phone conversations without a warrant has greatly influenced my vote...we better be sure we have safeguards...responding to Sen Kyl's comment that there is no law to battle terrorists w/o P-A. If President vetoes a 3-month ext. he is putting politics over safety. Let us not invoke the threat that Pres. would not extend P-A.

Leahy says wall won't go back up if P-A expires. Let's not delude ourselves that the wall goes back up.

Now Richard Durbin (IL). I voted for the P-A because in light of Sept 11 we had to do more. They said at end of four years we would revisit this law and that's why we're here today. I join the bipartisan commision: Craig, Murkowski, Sununu, Salazar, Feingold...noting how Senate bill passed senate by voice vote, there was that much of a consensus...salutes Sen from Penn., he has argued the substance, has not made it political...but he cites how there aren't documented abuses but so much is classified we don't really know if there are abuses...cites today's newspapers...we need to defeat cloture...pass 3-month extension...we can be both safe and free in America...

Specter has 47 seconds...I haven't said there have been no abuses...yields back five seconds...there is a laugh...

Now, Frist (TN, the Majority Leader): advance or retreat, it's as simple as that...retreat and defeat is the wrong strategy in Iraq, and it's the wrong strategy at home...we have more to fear from terrorists than we do from this P-A compromise...3-month extension makes no sense...he urges colleagues to vote yes...

[11:53]

Motion to invoke cloture to bring debate to an end: The question is, is it the sens of the senate that debate on reauthorization of P-A should be brought to an end, mandatory roll call vote, the clerk will call the roll!

Mr. Alexander (TN) says, "Aye!"

If the vote passes, debate on the P-A is ended and the Senate is clear to vote on reauthorization, i.e. approval of the CR. 60 votes are needed to invoke Cloture on Patriot Act Reauthorization, says C-SPAN2.

Mr. Obama, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, Mr. Reid of Nevada...Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Specter, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Talent, Mr. Thomas...Mr. Warner, Mr. Wyden...

Senators voting in teh negative: Craig, Sununu are the Repubs so far...

Murray? No. Sessions? Aye. Lieberman? No. Dorgan? No. Conrad? No. Rockefeller? No. Biden? No. Feinstein? No.
Warner? Aye. Lott? Aye. Carper? No. Johnson? Aye. Cornyn? Aye. Hatch? Aye. Levin? No. Roberts? Aye. Graham? Aye. Martinez? Aye. Coburn? Aye. Dole? Aye. Inouye? No. Gregg? Aye. Clinton? No. Bunning? Aye. Coleman? Aye. Nelson (NB)? Aye. DeMint? Aye. Vitter? Aye. Hutchison? Aye. Dayton? No. McCain? Aye. Hagel? No. Mikulski? No. Jeffords? No. Thomas? Aye. Pryor? No. Crapo? Aye. Allard? Aye. Bond? Aye. Landrieu? No. Santorun? Aye. Chafee? Aye. Obama? No. Smith? Aye. Cantwell? No. Wyden? No. Collins? Aye. Cochran? Aye. Salazar? No. Lugar? Aye. Boxer? No. Reed (RI)? No. Lincoln? No. Thune? Aye. Brownback? Aye. Enzi? Aye. Stevens? Aye. Harkin? No. [12:12] Nelson (FL)? No. Inhofe? Aye. Murkowski? No. Talent? Aye. Corzine? No. Ensign? Aye. Voinovich? Aye. Akaka? No. Kerry? No. Snowe? Aye. Kohl? No. Lautenberg? No. Burr? Aye. Shelby? Aye. Chambliss? Aye. [12:20] Byrd? No. Allen? Aye. Frist? No. [What?]

Does any member wish to change their vote? 52 yeahs, 47 nayes. Motion falls.

Leahy talking: unanimous consent request that jud. cmte. be discharged for futher consideration of 3 month extension...

Frist: opposes short term extension, objects to Leahy's motion. Back to Leahy. We are at an interesting point. Enormous work done by Specter. Opposition to terrorism unites all of us...referencing today's news once again...no oversight, no check and balance...DoJ advised Bush Ad that torture was legal. We have rejected concept that torture was legal we should reject concept of spying without checks and balances. A democratic nation does not exist without checks and balances. Checks and balances to protect our liberties. There are cooler heads here. There are distinguished senators in both parties who can bring this about.

Oh, Frist changed his vote so he could re-commit. Frist is asking that debate continue. Wants to encourage people who voted against cloture to come forward. We remain on PATRIOT Act, we will nto see a short-term extension.

Ladies and gentleman, we have a filibuster.

Baucus suggest the absence of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Sessions wants to express his disappointment. Quorum call is ended. This is a very, very, very important piece of legislation....we've worked very hard to achieve bipartisan support...Saying how any district attorney can subpoena medical records or library records, on one basis: is it relevant to an ongoing investigation? The delayed notice searches: simply says you can delay notice to the terrorist organization of what's going on...saw a story about a delayed notice warrant in a mafia case based on common law...must prove to judge it's important to safety of enforcing the law that notification is delayed...have to convince court in advance of that...§ 215 provisions require FISA court, prior judicial approval, require reports made to congress, objections being raised...urge colleagues to go back and reconsider this bill...if they do I think they'll feel very confident that there isn't anything here...I think you're going to feel a lot better about it...people will feel vey comfortable in casting a positive vote for this legislation...He yields the floor.

Jon Corzine is speaking. Giving what is more than likely what is last speech he will give on this floor...bittersweet feeling... Sen Byrd cuts in and says we will miss you bless your heart and Corzine says there's not much that could mean more than to have such a great senator say that...[at 12:57 Corzine has been going on for awhile]...racial profiling...minimum wage...Sarbanes Oxley...Bruce Springsteen...let me just close...thanks to colleagues and the people of New Jersey...looking forward to new job in a way I can't even get my mind around at times...I've loved this place...he yields the floor and there is applause...[1:01]...

Now Sen. Lautenberg (NJ)...so now Lautenberg is going to lend his views on Corzine...[1:02]...Time for a break...

OK, back at 1:45 and the Senate is still talking about Corzine...now Reed (RI)...is this what happens during a filibuster?...

Sen Feinstein (CA) has followed the Corzine tributes with a speech about how FISA is the law governing domestic spying. How maybe there is an exception for fifteen days of spying following a declaration of war. How FISA requires the OK of a judge before a wiretap can be put in place. How the President operated outside of FISA in authorizing the surveillance detailed in the NYT report. It is a crime for any person, w/o auth., to intercept any wire. She says she has been assured repeatedly by the Bush Ad that it has operated within the parameters of FISA. She says, yes the senate has changed that law under the Patriot Act with certain amendments... She now cites the Fourth Amendment of the Const. of the United States. She read it out. No warrants shall issue but upon probable cause...particularly describing the thing to be searched...a wiretap is a search...a wiretap is a search...you are looking for something...it falls under the Fourth Amendment...NYT says a small number of senators were informed of the prez's decisions...but that doesn't mean that the action was within the law...if eight out of 535 congresspersons were told, does that make the act any less culpable? I don't think so. Resolution passed under Sept 11th gave president authorization to use force to prevent future acts...she was going to read it...she can't find it...here it is Authorization for use of Military Force...§ 2, authr for use of military forces...seems aimed toward those who he think were involved in Sept 11...reference to the War Powers Act...what this resolution is is use of force, not use of wiretapping or surveillance of U.S. citizens...that is the jurisdiction of the FISA court...how FISA law allows communication and transfer of foreign intell from one agency to another if a significant purpose is foreign intelligence, as opposed to it used to be a "primary purpose"...how can we say that the people of the US are protected by the PATRIOT Act if what is in the NYT is true?...she says this is the most significant thing she has heard in her twelve years...she says due process is what makes us different...that's why the fourth amendment was added to the bill of rights...searches and seizures must not be carried out unilaterally to the President...door has been opened to a very major investigation...people who know me know I am not led to hyperbole...she yields the floor at 14:23...

Now, Sen Dayton (MN)...wait, no it's now Sen Byrd (WV)...thanks Dayton for yielding...says he wishes Dayton would win again...says the reason is because Dayton was one of 23 to vote against resolution to yield force...Byrd says in his 47 years he is most proud of that vote? Why? He holds up the constitution. Mr Pres, I believe in America. Let me say that again. I believe in the dream of the founders and framers of our inspiring Const. I believe in the spirit that drove Lincoln to risk Alllll to preserve the Union. I believe in what Kennedy challenged America to be: the great experiment called democracy. Stand as a beacon (and he points)...that lights and energizes the people around the world. Today, today sadly, that beacon is dim. This Admin's America is becoming a place where the strong are arrogant and the weak are ignored. Yes we hear high-flowing language from the WH about bringing democracy to lands where democracy has never been. But does the rhetoric really match the reality? I speak of the actions of our own gov't, actions that have undermined the cred of this great country around the world. These actions taken as a whole form an unsettling picture. Abu Ghraib? Do we remember? Explained as an aberration. Guantanmo Bay? Denied as an exaggeration. Now we read about the socalled policy of rendition. What a shame. Secret prisons in foreign lands. What a word, rendition. What a word. Sounds so vague almost harmeless. But the practice is abhorrent. Let me say that again. Abhorrent. Abhorrent. It's an affront, an affront to the principles of freedom. The very opposite of principles we claim we're trying to transplant to Iraq and other rogue nations. What is the value of having the CIA sit as judge and jury as to who might be a threat to our national security? Such determinations receive no review from a court of law...abducts people from foreign country and flies them off to who knows where...held in secret prisons of unknown countries...tortured by the hands of secret police...is this the America that Nathan Hale died for?...when he said he regretted that he had but one life to lose for his country...is this the beacon of freedom inspiring other nations to follow?...torture...treaties...disgusting, degrading practice of rendition should seek immediately...is this what Patrick Henry was talking about, give me liberty or give me death?...cites the words of Sen. John McCain...thuggish practice of rendition...similarly alarming effort to reauth PATRIOT Act...what is happening to our cherished America? What is happening? He holds up the constitution once again. Sept 11th is not a green light to shred the consitution. Suppose I want to get a book out of the library. Suppose I want to read Love's Labour Lost? Suppose I want to read about the Tale of Two Cities? They gonna seize those library records, get a load of that. To spy on...sick sick..s..i..c.k..perversion of our manner of our justice...paranoia must not be allowed to chip away at our civil liberties...we must not trash teh 4th amdt., holds up const again because U.S. Senate is being stampeded at end of a governmental session...not what the framers had in mind, not what Benj Franklin had in mind...not what Morris had in mind...James Wilson...spying on ordinary, unsuspecting citizens...without their knowledge? No, that is not what the framers had in mind. Yesterday we heard military was spying on citizens merely who chose to speak their mind...what a disgrace. Today we hear the military is tapping the phone lines of citizens without the approval of a judge? PHew on that statue of liberty. Labeling civil disobedience...is not what the framers had in mind. Read the history, read the history. Those who would give up liberty to get a little security diserve neither liberty nor safety. Separation of powers...holds up constitution (size of his palm, has it in his hand and he's shaking it around)...points to the cameras, the people out on the broad prairies, out on the plains, the frozen wastes of the North Pole, that american liberty extends everywhere...these checks are what safeguard freedom...safeguard us all and points to everyone...we owe it to those men and women to deliberate meaningfully...senate can stand against an overreaching president of an party, any party...the patriot act has gone too far, gone too far...secret renditions should be stopped stopped stopped! Torture must be outlawed. Our military should not spy on our own people. The Senate has spoken. Let us secure our country but not by destroying our liberties. Thank almighty god for this const. and for the framers who wrote it, who risked their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor. Thank god for checks and balances, thank god for the senate. Thanks all senators...thanks the senator from Minnesota...

Senator from MN is recognized...but parliamentary inquiry from McCain, wants to follow Sen from MN...so now Mark Dayton (MN)...[14:47]

Dayton, McCain, Lieberman have spoke. Now Durbin. McCain was talking about the Abramoff scandal, and politicians being flown to play golf at St. Andrews...[15:10]

I tuned out for awhile but there was more action toward the end of the senate session. Minority Leader Reid spoke for a little while about ANWR being reinserted into the Defense Bill and how that was going to be a big problem. He was saying he had heard that it was a possibility.

Then Sen. Warner came to the floor and said how the House was thinking about reopening the defense bill conference report to insert a certain provision, Warner would not name it. He said, the House is free to do what it wants but if they reopen the CR and attach that provision I will not support it in the Senate even though I have supported that provision under other circumstances in the past.

So Sen. Reid was taken aback and said that if you looked up senator in the annals of history the example given might just be Sen. Warner. Sen. Reid said he would not be able to support the defense bill if the ANWR provision is attached to it by the House. He said that would be a real shame because there is a war going on and it's crazy that we can't get this bill through, with all the other problems and negotiations it has been subject to (torture issue).

Sen Frist spoke about the Saturday session. It will start at four pm eastern. He discussed the possibility of a sunday sesssion. He said monday will be very busy. He said he did not anticipate and roll call voting on Saturday but he recognized that the course of the rest of this session might not be so easy to predict.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

December 14, 2005



A bit late to the party...

[12:10 est]

The Senate was voting on a motion by Senator Carper (Delaware) on emergency family assistance spending. It's getting the support of quite a few Republicans, such as: Martinez (FL), Kyl (AZ), Smith, (OR), Collins (ME), and Frist (TN).

Yeas have it, 67-24, the motion to instruct the conference committee is passed.

[12:20]

Now Baucus is on to speak about his motion to instruct. The Senate is not in order he says. Murkowski (AK) is the presiding officer. She brings things to order. Baucus wears a black suit with a black and white tie. He is against the proposed Medicaid cuts. He calls them "harsh."

Senator Gregg (NH), the budget cmte. chairman, is on to debate it. The senate will be in order. Gregg says Medicaid will reach more people in a more effective way and doesn't see the House language as cutting people out.

The clerk calls the roll. [12:23]

Bond (MO) votes for it, along with a bunch of other Republicans. It sounds like a lot of Republicans, including Hutchison (TX) and Santorum (PA), are voting for it although Allen (VA) and Frist (TN) vote against it, along with various other Republicans including Sununu (NH). Wait, Frist just voted for it, apparently changing his vote.

At [12:44] the vote rolls along...

Yeas take it 75-14.

Now the Harkin (IA) motion to instruct the conference. John Thune (SD) is now presiding officer and tells Senators to take their convos off of the floor. Harkin is talking about cuts in the food stamps program. It's not waste fraud and abuse that the House cut out, he says, it's people who really need the food stamps. This is not the time to cut food stamps for people who are working and struggling to feed their children. He says he has fifteen republican senators who want the Senate language, not the House language. Gregg (NH) comes on and say we can address fraud waste and abuse without kicking people off of the food stamps rolls. He says people should vote no.

Clerk calls the roll. [12:50]

When the clerk calls out Bond's name you can hear someone say in the background, "No." The votes start to come in at 12:58. Sounds like plenty of Republicans are voting for it: Thune (ND), Hagel (NE) (who changed his vote, apparently).

Yeas have it 66-26. [1:08]

Hagel comes on and puts down a schedule for senators speaker after recesses. Senate has just recessed, will return at 2:15 est. It will return to the issue of Budget Cuts, and also perhaps the Patriot Act, after the recess.

[1:10 est]

In the meantime, this is the language of Patriot Act, § 215:

50 USCS § 1861 (2005)

§ 1861. Access to certain business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations [Caution: See prospective amendment note below.]

(a) Application for order; conduct of investigation generally.
(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 [50 USCS § 401 note] (or a successor order); and
(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(b) Recipient and contents of application. Each application under this section--
(1) shall be made to--
(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a) [50 USCS § 1803(a)]; or
(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code [28 USCS §§ 631 et seq.], who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

(c) (1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

The concern perhaps is that "clandestine intelligence activities" (see (a)(1)) might not have anything to do with terrorism. This term does not seem to be defined in the Act. Otherwise, this act gives the government the power to search & seize business records and other documents for the purpose of a foreign intelligence or international terrorism investigation. That does not seem too crazy. However, what are "clandestine intelligence activities"? Any person surveilling the federal gov't might be collecting intelligence in a clandestine way. What is this argument really about? People still want to feel free to make the case for a revolution. In other words, this debate really is about the way we think the government should handle domestic terrorism. The Bush Administration believes that the central, federal governemnt should handle domestic terror issues while those currently opposing this part of the PATRIOT Act believe domestic terrorism can be handled in other ways, e.g. through existing criminal laws. Currently under the PATRIOT Act clandestine intelligence activities are not protected from gov't search. But, really, if there ever were a revolution, it would be no holds barred anyway so what does it matter what the PATRIOT Act says? This is a debate about principals.

[14:15]

Senate comes back into session. Pat Roberts (KS) notes that the House has "passed the PATRIOT Act." The conference report is a compromise. The mark of a good compromise is that it leaves both sides unhappy. Personally, he's opposed to the sunsets. The Senate has found no abuse or over-reaching of the PATRIOT Act. If we've fixed these provisions, why is there need for additional sunsets? We have an oversight obligation already.

He focuses on the FISA business records provision (§ 215) and the national security letters (NSLs). Says critics say § 215 could be used for "fishing expeditions." Some want not just a relevant standard but facts tying the investigation standard to a foreign power or the agent of a foreign power, a so-called "relevance plus" standard. By the time FBI shows relevance plus he says, they've lost the benefit of § 215. Current standard is "relevance to an authorized investigation." [See (a) above] Is the scope of lawful investigation too broad? There is a presumption of relevance...and this is where critics are sinking their teeth. Conference report says records obtained in § 215 have to go through some sort of Attorney General minimization screning procedure. Roberts doesn't like this minimization procedure but he was willing to compromise on it. One current phone number connected to a one-year-old credit card receipt connected to...might be the information we need to discover a terrorist.

Now on to the NSLs. The CR makes three important modifications. Criminal penalties for noncompliance with NSLs. Clarifies how recipients of NSLs can seek judicial review if NSL is oppressive, or otherwise unlawful. He is concerned that disclosure that FBI has sought information might hinder investigation into espionage ring or terrorist cells. FBI needs these nondisclosure provisions. A terrorist who finds out he is being investigated might, in the worst case scenario, speed up the timetable for launching his attack. CR makes non-disclosure non-automatic, must now be invoked. Conferees didn't stop there. CR includes more oversight provisions, including public reporting on some of these investigative tools. 99.9% of FBI agents are not rogue agents, to whom we too frequently legislate.

[14:31]

He then started discussing national security subpoenas and wondered why invesigators of terrorists couldn't get them when investigators of health care fraud could. Then he spoke about how a National Security division would be set up in the Dept. of Justice.

Finally, he strongly opposes the idea of extending the current PATRIOT Act three months. He does not believe any more time will bring opponents and supporters any closer togther. He believes that more time and more negotiation will make the PATRIOT Act weaker. There has not been any abuse of the PATRIOT Act. Further compromise will negotiate away important tools. Terrorists continue to plot against us, seek to continue their war against us. I am deeply committed to the men and women of the intelligence community. He will vote for cloture* if it's necessary, he hopes it's not necessary. He yields the floor.

*Cloture is a vote to end debate in a deliberative body

[14:38]

Roberts suggested absence of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Akaka...

Senator Mikulski (MD) came on. [14:40] She has fifteen minutes. She's introducing legislation called Kendall Fredrick Citizenship Act of 2005. Someone from her district was killed by a roadside bomb on the way to become a citizen. He had joined the ROTC in high school. Joined military after high school. She says he was called by the botched bureaucracy of the U.S. gov't because he wasn't going the right way when he got killed. She is going to recite his story:

He was a mechanic assigned to a heavy combat battalion. He wanted to become an American citizen for awhile. (He had joined the Army without being a citizen?) You are fingerprinted when you join the army. He sent in his citizenship application but he checked the wrong box, saying he was not in the military. So the application was derailed three different times. Immigration sent the application to the wrong office, it should've gone to the office that fast tracks applications of military personnel. The Army let him in but Immigration wouldn't pass him. Try calling immigration. That's like calling from the Superdome in Katrina. Immigration wanted him to come home from Baghdad to get fingerprinted. His mom was like he's in freaking Baghdad getting shot at. His sergeant made arrangements to get him fingerprinted. He traveled in a convoy to go get his fingerprints and on the way a roadside bomb killed him. He got posthumous citizenship and was buried in Arlington.

The legislation I'm introducing today makes it easier for members of the military to become citizens. Persons in the military won't leave boot camp before being apprised of the citizenship process. If you're good enough to fight for this country, you're good enough to be a citizen of this country. There are about 3,000 military personnel with greencards. Her bill focuses on people who've been fingerprinted and passed an FBI background check. The act establishes a 1-800 number for troops trying to become citizens.

She notes the absence of a quorum. [14:52]

At 15:20 Sen. Carper (DE) has been speaking for awhile. He was talking about Iraq and Iraq policy. He suggested maybe we should sit down for some multilateral talks with Iran. There are 6,500 candidates running for election in Iraq. He predicts there will not be a majority government but there will need to be coalitions, not unlike what happens in Israel. He is now [15:27] talking about the ninth Delaware soldier to have died in Iraq, Shawn Moudy. He asked for a quorum call but then had it rescinded. He asked for several senators to be allowed time to speak: Clinton and Kennedy included.

Carper again notes the absence of a quorum. [15:30]

[15:36] Sen. Kennedy (MA) comes on. Tomorrow we'll have a series of votes giving instructions to our conferees on priority items. Including higher education. He urges a favorable vote on this by Republicans and Democrats alike. The resolution he proposes he says has received bipartisan support in committee. Talks about how many engineers Chinese universities will be graduating this year. How will we meet the challenges of globalization?

Then Sen. Clinton (NY) came on [15:43]. Talks about misplaced priorities of White House and Republican-majority Congress. She references New Orleans and more and more people falling below the poverty line. Job losses at GM, Ford, Delphi. And $8.1t debt. Budget lays bare priorities of Republicans: loophole tax breaks for oil companies. Choices that would give Ebeneezer Scrooge pause. Congress on verge of enacting fatally flawed budget plan. Budget plan written in full spirit of the grinch who stole christmas. Taking away housing grants and student loan benefits, e.g. The grinch saw the error of his ways, will this Congress? She calls it the grinch budget and says how we need to go back to pay-go. Budget continues erosion of work support program. She notes tax cuts that have not yet come into effect. We should establish fund for alternative energies by requiring oil companies to invest in alt. energy, require oil companies to help with heating bills this winter. Could eliminate $2.6b in new tax breaks oil companies get under this year's energy bill.

At [13:53] I gotta crash.

From my snooze at 17:30 or so I had heard Frist saying something about a cloture petition. So I got up but nothing seems to be going on until tomorrow, when Frist will bring the conference report before the Senate for a vote.

Now [17:48] Sen. Landrieu is on talking about how the federal government is more or less responsible for the Katrina damage. She stops mid-speech to ask for order. She has a photo out that depicts a gutted house and says that without federal action homes are gonna stay looking like this. What we've done so far is wholly inadequate. FEMA is not designed to meet this disaster, even with the best executives. Don't confuse sending money to FEMA with helping homeowners and businesses in the gulf coast. She then has a photo showing an older American sitting on a porch with a totally gutted house behind her. This is what a lot of people are going to be doing this Christmas. So she says, yeah the PATRIOT Act is really important, but there's other kinds of security we need to be legislating about. We're sitting around here passing 100 bills that have nothing to do with helping them. 28,000 thousand homes lost in Andrew, Charlie, Gene. But 275,000 homes destroyed by Katrina. We're helping businesses in Iraq, but we can't help our own American businesses. The White House cannot claim that more has been done in this disaster than in any other disaster. It may be true that more money has been moved through FEMA for this disaster than any other disaster... We cannot leave without a Cochran-Byrd Reallocation of the President's supplemental. We appreciate that money. Some of it has helped, but the rest of that money is to refurbish federal facilities. Let's take a look at this photo, this is what we want to refurbish.

At 16:09 Feingold comes on. But Harkin was slated to go next, so now he's on. Harkin is talking about food companies advertising to children. Green Shrek Twinkies, for example. Shrek has a powerful appeal to kids' minds. Shrek likes Twinkies so Twinkies must be OK to eat.

At about 17:40 Sen. Feingold came back on. He is stressing that he is not advocating repeal of any part of the PATRIOT Act. He is talking about the wall between law enforcement and intelligence operations. Feingold will fight the conference report with every ounce of strengh he has.

He wants to talk about the library provision. And, the now-infamous § 215. Gov't can get library records in domestic intelligence operations. Records do not need to concern someone connected to a terrorist or a spy. All the gov't has to say are the magic words. Then the FISA court is required to issue the order. Recipients of a records request are subject to a gag order. Attorney General says in op-ed in today's Washington Post that there have been no verified civil liberties abuses under this provision. But this is a secret court and receipients are gagged so how would we know if there were abuses? He says Senate judiciary cmte. came up with language saying a person's records couldn't be tapped unless it were shown that that person were connected to terrorism or espionage. It would prevent gov't from going on fishing expeditions into the lives of innocent Americans. The CR supplies a presumption of relevance of the records request to an authorized intelligence investigation. Relevance is a very broad standard. Senate bill requires gov't to satisfy one of three tests. CR only subjects request to relevance test.

Neither does CR provide for judicial review of the gag order. It doesn't give FISA court any latitude to consider whether the gag order should be automatic and permanent in every case. Two courts have found first Amdt. problems with similar statutes because they do not provide for individualized....

Moving on to other sections. Next a closely related provision. The national security letters (NSLs) (§§ 355 & 508). These are issued by FBI to businesses to obtain information. But here, the gov't does not have to go to the FISA court in order to issue these letters. Can only be used to obtain certain categories of business letters. Internet, phone usage, credit reports. Jewellers, car dealers, travel agents, casinos. Gov't must only certify that purpose is for investigation of terorrism or espionage. Could argue that the conference report makes the law worse. Does nothing to change the issuance standard. Are NSL's like grand jury subpoenas? If so, what's the big deal? There are two critical differences. In GJ investigation, request must be relevant to particular crime at hand. In sharp contrast, intelligence investigations are extremely broad. Anything could potentially be relevant. Relevance in intelligence operations is a very different standard thatn relevance in criminal investigations. Second, recipients of GJ subpoenas are not subject to secrecy orders. CR creates illusion of judicial review of NSLs. You can challenge the order but you have no way of telling what the gov't is telling the court in response to your challenge. It's very disturbing. What's the standard for getting the gag order overturned? You have to show that gov't acted in bad faith. This is a standard that's virtually impossible to meet. When you look behind the words in the statute, you realize that it's just a mirage.

Now to the sneak and peeks. Notice of the search is part of the standard 4th Amdt. protection. This is what gives teeth to the 4th Amdt's requirement of a warrant. Two courts have said notice must be given in seven days, unless renewed. Why can't the gov't go back and get an extension after 7 days? From the point of view of someone whose house has been secretly searched...there's a big difference between seven days and a month. What if the gov't searched the wrong house? They'd fear someone had broken in. Should we make that person live in fear for a month?

Feingold yields the floor at 17:28 and notes the absence of a quorum.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

December 13, 2005

Speeches on Any Topic • U.S. Bahrain Trade • No Votes

Feingold (Wisconsion) busted out with this Five-Point speech outlining his plan for dealing with the problems he sees plaguing our strategy for winning the global war on terror. He got me pumped up because he was forceful and actually had some concrete ideas for going after al Qaeda and evntually getting out of Iraq. I wondered if the U.S. won't leave Iraq because that might be the best way the U.S. thinks it can get Zarqawi. Whoa, Zarqawi is number one on the most wanted list, if that list is based on which terrorist attracts the most U.S. defense dollars.

The Patriot Act was the issue of the day, however. Specter came on and had a little bit of an unoffical colloquy with Feingold. Specter (Pennsylvania) spoke for awhile about changes that the conference report has made substantial changes to the Act as it exists now. Then he asked Feingold a question. But Specter said Feingold with all due respect did not answer his question. Then Specter talked awhile longer to the changes of the conference bill, the controversial aspects including § 215. That seems to be the point of most contention. Then Feingold came back on and said I did answer your question, Mr. Chairman. And says how And Specter says, You don't know what I did in the conference because you weren't a conferee, and I'll have you know I didn't get everything I asked for, we have a bicameral legislation, how he didn't have everything I liked. Basically, it's not going to be perfect. Feingold tries to get back in and Specter says I have the floor. Feingold again tried to get Specter to yield but Specter would not yield. Specter gives Feingold time. Feingold says you did an awesome job in the conference committee and I know you tried, the problem is not you, I'm not saying it is. But he still objects to the conference report. He dislikes the sunset provisions. Feingold notes that he was the only senator to vote against the first Act because it was deeply flawed. The chairman has been tremendous but he's very disappointed with what the senate got back from the committee. Then he yielded the floor. Specter says he likes the part where Feingold says he was brilliant and a tremendous chairman but he's got to debate the senator from Wisconsion on the other points.

Specter then started to talk about judicial review. We have moved close to probable cause on a search warrant, or an arrest warrant. Reasonable grounds to be believe that what is sought in an investigation is for an international terrorist organization.

Feingold came back on to say that Specter told him what Specter did in the conferences. Feingold is saying that under the act the investigation does not have to be linked to terrorism, § 215 he cites again, and again. On that ground alone Feingold is against the conference report, it seems. Feingold says, this isn't about if we had our druthers, it's about the gov't going and looking at your library records regardless of whether it's related to terrorism. Specter comes back on, says in the grand scheme the bill is acceptable. He says, yes the investigation does have to be related to a terrorism inquiry. I wouldn't support a bill that infringed on civil liberties, wouldn't do it. Also, a conclusive presumption in the national security letters. The NSL was not established by the patriot act, and have been in existence for decades. And says they've got some nice compromises on NSLs in the conference report. Recipient of NSL the right to contract an attorney, go to court, get the NSL quashed if it is unreasonable, oppressive,.... The provision on this in the CR he says is more protective than that in the Senate version. Specter offers Feingold chance to respond, if that's alright with the president. No objection.

Feingold has to get going but he wants to add something quickly before he leaves. Feingold says the NSL provisions are not sunsetted and need to be. Specter says the Sen from WI needs to get a briefing and not get his info from the Washington post. Specter say please don't leave the floor. Feingold says I got to. Specer says, well just briefly here, the Washington Post is just plain wrong. He then reads from the conference report, how they got 30 days, and how there are 85 senate provisions in the CR vs. 15 house provisions. He opposes wiretaps, too, he says. He was DA in southern Pennsylvania and didn't like them then either. He wants Feingold to look at how random selection is foiled by the language about wiretaps. Random selection? The general sunset compromise he says is 4 years. Apparently Bush and the White House were in agreement with 4 years on the sunset. So the House lost out, when it was asking for seven years.

Feingold wants to respond, but maybe later? Specter offers plaudits on the debate, which he says is too rare in this body. Feingold says, yeah, this funny, the senator from PA is valiant but he's worried that Specter voted for all of the positions Feingold is voting for (the senate version). And wonders why Specter is not more concerned, that 30 days notification on the sneak and peek is troublesome. The senate bill was seven days. The house wanted 180. So, your place could be searched and you wouldn't know for 30 days is what the CR has. Feingold likes how the senate sunsets have been inocorporated but says, the sunsets should be only the first protection we offer to the people, that sunsetting a bad provision is not even a Pyrrhic victory.

Specter says Feingold has just made my argument better than I have. He says 30 days on a surreptition or secret search (as opposed to what, a public search?) is a major concession from 180 days. The House gave up 150 days, the Senate only 23. See, the Senate did win that negotiation. He talks about scintillas and peppercorns. Feingold has not left yet. he tries to get back in, but Specter won't let him, something about SPecter will yet, I'll say Byrd pull this, I'm not gonna yield until I know I still have the right to the floor. Ok, he gets the right and yields. Feingold is pissed off about the 30 days. The U.S. Govt' comes into your house without any notice (which is not allowed by the Fourth Amdt., he says) Why can't a judge renew this every seven days. It is not a minor difference of 7 or 30 days. Specter says Feingold's problem is really with even one day of delayed notice searching. Specter says you've gott have delayed notification because otherwise the person you're investigating will know you are on to him. So these delays allow us to stay on the job and not blow our case. [One might wonder...what are they waiting for?...if you know it's your guy, pounce.) So then he says how the senate is not in order, vaguely I suppose I can hear people talking in the background: Feingold? The Senate comes to order after one more plaint. Now more Senators are coming to the floor!

Specter moved on to WTO issues. He focused on current U.S. law protecting farmers, and how the WTO is opposed to that law. He does not want the U.S. to give up that law in obeisance to the WTO. He yields to the Senator from Mexico. Byrd is now sitting president. 'The Senator is recogniiized.'

It's Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico). He is speaking about funding for children's programs, benefits that could potentially be lost if the House budget package goes through. Medicaid benefits for children, for example.

Then Max Baucus (Montana) also came on to talk about Medicaid beneficiaries, and the House Bill. Baucus wants the Senat to object to these proposed cuts. Says these cuts will hurt children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, the poorest and neediest among us. Baucus wrapped up by discussing the "Libby" provisions of the Asbestos Bill. These provisions somehow favor or benefit the town of Libby, MT where people appear to have been sickened from years of mining vermiculite asbestos. The fibers of the asbestos mined in Libby, he says, are unlike other asbestos fibers. They are barbed and cause havoc and cancer in the lungs. He said that although EPA had listed Libby as a Superfund site and got it put on the National Priorities List, that only 10% of the cleanup had been completed. So his provisions must fund that clean-up. It is also possible that his provisions see to favorable treament of Libby residents in court. The defendant in this instance is W.R. Grace & Co., the mine operator/owner.

Quorum call. C-SPAN says a quorum call is used in the senate, most often, to temporarily delay floor proceedings.

Later this week in the Senate: Federal Spending • PATRIOT Act Extension • Budget Cuts

It is 15:11 est

It is 15:15 est

Senator Grassley (Iowa) has come on talking about the U.S-Bahrain free trade agreement. USBFTA? He believes that this trade agreement is a win for our economy. Bahrain proposes to eliminate 100% of the duties it currently charges to U.S. products, except for 2% of U.S. agriculture products. Trade in every service sector, unless excluded. Says Bahrain is a service provider center in the Middle East. As the region develops, there will be increased opportunity for U.S. exports. Says workers at Iowa Lenox (heating products) will benefit from this agreement. Also, Meentemeyer corporation will benefit from this agreement, out of Cedar Rapids. Talking about our Free Trade agreement with Oman, which is based on the Bahrain agreement. By the year 2013, the U.S., President Bush included, wants a Middle East Free Trade Agreement by 2013. A broader effort wants Israel cut in on these free trade agreements. Also, Jordan and Morocco. Senate has before it a bill implementing the U.S.-Bahrain free trade agreement.

Grassley then has remarks for Conf. Comm. on Byrd Amendment instructions. The Byrd Amendment is designed to prevent dumping. Then he goes through list of various senators who say they will oppose the reconciliation bill if such and such a provision remains in it: Medicaid, payment limits, MLCC program (Milk Program), etc. Everyone is for balanced budgets until their pet issue stands in the way. We need to ask ourself if we're really trying to trim this budget. Byrd Amdt. described as Pork. Cutting it would allow more money to go to federal govt. One recipient of the program used the money to pay off a home mortgage, he says. The provision was originally slipped into a bill a few years ago. What we're talking about is getting rid of a subsidy program that benefits the few at the expense of the many. Calls it corporate welfare. WTO says U.S. trading partners can retailiate against U.S. because of this Byrd Amendment. Consumers are hurt, as are U.S. exporters of: wine, cigarettes, forkload trucks, steel products, copy machines, etc. Soon India, South Korea could exercise their rights to retaliate. The situation needs to end. The GAO report points out other ridiculous aspects of program: no accountability. Claims submitted for disbursements under the program might not be justified. Our gross domestic product (GDP) last year was 11 plus trillion. [15:34 est] House has already nixed Byrd Amendment.

Next up, Baucus speaking about USBFTA. How it's going to open up foreign markets to U.S. products. Robust service sector provisions in agreement. Recognition of intellectual property rights. A seed to grow prosperity over instability. He applauds the work of trade negotiators. Says U.S. ambassor Belushi (?) was very close to negotiations. [15:39 est]

Baucus then moved to an entirely other matter. Talking about an emperor that ruled Byzantine empire. Sending emissary up Adriatic Sea, to Venice. Guy ended up teaching Greek at some college in Florence. Chrysallarus. Noone had translated Greek in Italy for 700 years. Led to a flame of learning reconnecting Europe to...thought. The Modern Age, the scientific revolution, began. Western Europe gained its dominance of world economy during Renaissance. This is about the year 1000, a.d. Now talking about Cordova, Spain. He is paying homage to the Italian Renaissance and noting something about Arab caliphates. So he calls for a new American Renaissance. Smart people in China and India are learning to do what we are, and they will be able to do it more cheaply. The theme of his speech is competitiveness, something he has talked about many times this year on the floor of the senate. American gov't cannot stand idly by.

Six step agenda.

(1) Improve education. Need educated workforce.

[But I tuned out.]

Byron Dorgan (North Dakota) came on at about 1600 est and started talking about how deep the U.S. trade deficit is. He had a chart entitled, "Out of Control Trade Deficits." Talk about how stuff is made in countries, cheaply, and sold at one of the big-box stores, like Wal-Mart. Talks about how a woman last year set out to buy her children only gifts made in the U.S. They wanted some electronics and she couldn't find anything from U.S. We sold China $3b in good last year, but purchased $23b of goods from China. Supposedly China has a huge market but our stuff isn't being sold there. This free trade isn't free at all. This trade is unsustainable. We're losing American jobs because employees here cost too much money. Our trade deficit is financed by debt we sell to foreign countries. Buyers are telling suppliers to start making the supplies, e.g. auto parts, in China. In China the cost per hour would be 30 cents whereas here it was $20 or $30 an hour. Who's gonna buy these good made abroad if the people in the U.S. don't have any jobs. How about bilateral automobile trade? With Korea, for instance. Only 3,900 U.S. autos sold in Korea. Dodge Dakota became popular in Korea but Korea quashed the popularity. Accusations that China stole production blueprints from GM. There is a Chinese company called Chery, that is going to sell a car called the QQ or something and this car is very much similar to the car that would be made from the stolen blueprints. Dorgan asks for a few more minutes. Pennsylvania House Furniture he cites. La-Z-Boy bought it and tried to move it to China. PA governor tried to save it but La-Z-Boy moved it. Now the PA wood is sent to China to be assembled and then sent back. Pennies on the hour for child workers and no pollution controls and no unions in China. That's not fair trade, that's not helping our country. Who ultimately is going to buy those products? My point is that this doesn't work. Why are we talking about the free trade agreement with Bahrain? It's a small moment to talk about doing a FTA with them. Why aren't we focusing our attention on the huge deficits? And these international corporations have the mail sent to the Bahamas. A building in the Cayman Islands is official residence for 12,748 corporations. What's the purpose of having a residence in the Cayman Islands? Simple. You don't have to pay taxes in this country. You can have all the opporunities of the American but you don't have to hire American workers or pay American taxes. There are some great corporations in this country but the corporate culture has gone off the track. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we were talking about the full-blown trade crisis? We are selling this country piece by piece. You finance a trade deficit by putting currency in the hands of people in other countries, so that they can buy our bonds, real estate, etc. Calling the trade policy jingoistic. Dorgan yields the floor. [16:19 est]

Sen Mark Dayton (Minnesota) paid his respects to one-time MN senator, Eugene McCarthy.

[16:11 est]

Majority leader Bill Frist (Tennessee) came on and said that the Senate should vote to reject the House amendment to the budget bill/deficit reduction bill. Then he brought the Bahrain bill before the Senate and got it passed by voice vote. He understood that there were three bills at the desk due for a second reading. All three are tax bills, one concerning the Gulf Opportunity Zone. He got these three bills placed on the calendar. He moved on to specifying the agenda for tomorrow, the 14th.

The deficit reduction bill will be voted on by the Senate over the next couple days. There are several proposals to instruct the Senate conferees concerning conference negotiations on this deficit reduction bill. He came back and covered passage of the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. He says the Senate might possibly have to meet on Saturday because there are a lot of bills that the Senate has to address.

He moved on to talk about Iraqi elections, a subject he covered in his morning business speech. He says it looks like a record number will be voting in Iraq. He and other senators talked with the U.S. ambassador to Iraq as well as Gen. Casey by conference call this morning. Some advances have been made. There are up to 97 Iraqi battalions in the fight, as opposed to five at the beginning of this year. 31 operational brigade headquarters, almost double the number of trained & equipped Iraqi security forces (214,000). Plus, more tips being provided by the Iraqi people. September, 4, 705 tips to Iraqi and U.S. forces. Information is flowing freely. One resulted in bust of Improvised Explosive Device (IED) factory. New gov't will be in place by April 2006. If there is no other business, he asks the senate to be adjourned.

It is adjourned until tomorrow morning.
[18:22 est]

Live coverage when Senate resumes, C-SPAN2