Archive for the ‘Senate’ Category
Completely Reckless, Completely Irresponsible
from the Office of Senator Mitch McConnell
Thursday, December 17, 2009
‘And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen. That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private’
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform:
“Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we’re considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider.
“So it stands to reason that we’d devote significant time and attention to it.
“Indeed, some would argue that we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most — if not every — previous bill we’ve considered.
“The Majority disagrees.
“Why? Because this bill has become a political nightmare for them.
“They know Americans overwhelmingly oppose it, so they want to get it over with.
“Americans are already outraged at the fact that Democrat leaders took their eyes off the ball. Rushing the process on a partisan line makes the situation even worse.
“Americans were told the purpose of reform was to reduce the cost of health care.
“Instead, Democrat leaders produced a $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page monstrosity that vastly expands government, raises taxes, raises premiums, and wrecks Medicare.
“And they want to rush this bill through by Christmas — one of the most significant, far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history. They want to rush it.
“And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen.
“That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private.
“That’s what they intend to bring to the floor and force a vote on before Christmas.
“So this entire process is essentially a charade.
“But let’s just compare the process so far with previous legislation for some perspective. Here’s a snapshot of what we’ve done and where we stand:
• The Majority Leader intends to bring this debate to a close as early as this weekend — four days from now, on this $2.5 trillion dollar mistake
• No American who hasn’t been invited into the Majority Leader’s conference room knows what will be in that bill
• This bill has been the pending business of the Senate since the last week of November — less than four weeks ago.
• We started the amendment process two weeks ago.
• We’ve had 21 amendments and motions — less than two a day.
“Now let’s look at how the Senate has dealt with previous legislation.
“No Child Left Behind (2001):
• 21 session days or 7 weeks.
• Roll Call votes: 44
• Number of Amendments offered: 157
“9/11 Commission/Homeland Security Act (2002):
• 19 session days over 7 weeks.
• Roll Call votes: 20
• Number of Amendments offered: 30
“Energy Bill (2002):
• 21 session days over 8 weeks
• Number of Roll Call votes: 36
• Number of Amendments offered: 158
“This isn’t an energy bill. This is an attempt by a majority to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy — to vastly expand the reach and the role of government into the health care decisions of every single American — and they want to be done after one substantive amendment. This is absolutely inexcusable.
“I think Senator Snowe put it best on Tuesday:
‘Given the enormity and complexity,’ she said, ‘I don’t see anything magical about the Christmas deadline if this bill is going to become law in 2014.’
“And I think Senator Snowe’s comments on a lack of bipartisanship at the outset of this debate are also right on point.
“Here’s what she said in late November:
‘I am truly disappointed we are commencing our historic debate on one of the most significant and pressing domestic issues of our time with a process that has forestalled our ability to arrive at broader agreement on some of the most crucial elements of health care reform. The bottom line is, the most consequential health care legislation in the history of our country and the reordering of $33 trillion in health care spending over the coming decade shouldn’t be determined by one vote-margin strategies – surely we can and must do better.’
“The only conceivable justification for rushing this bill is the overwhelming opposition of the American people. Democrats know that the longer Americans see this bill the less they like it. Here’s the latest from Pew. It came out just yesterday.
“A majority (58 percent) of those who have heard a lot about the bills oppose them while only 32 percent favor them.”
“There is no justification for this blind rush — except a political one, and that’s not good enough for the American people.
“And there’s no justification for forcing the Senate to vote on a bill none of us has seen.
“Americans already oppose this bill. The process is just as bad.
“It’s completely reckless, completely irresponsible.”
###
Ensign receives handwritten confirmation
This doesn’t happen often enough.
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.
Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it “Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.”
The note was a follow-up to Ensign’s questioning at the markup.
By Carrie Budoff Brown 11:40 AM
American health care is unacceptable
Dear ,
The status quo in American health care is unacceptable. Prices are already too high (and rising) for families and small businesses, and too many people go without coverage. We can fix it. And we can fix it with common sense reforms. We don’t need a massive, complex, costly government-run system and we don’t need to raise taxes on small businesses.
Democratic Health Care Proposal Would Perpetuate “Status Quo.”
Unfortunately, that’s exactly what Democrats want to do. According to Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson, their proposal would only perpetuate the “status quo” of rising health care costs and increased government spending. “While denouncing skyrocketing health spending,” Samuelson writes, the Democrats’ plan would increase spending and add to the deficit.
A new Quinnipiac survey found that a wide margin of voters believes the Democratic proposal “should be dropped if it adds ‘significantly’ to the deficit.” Their health care takeover will do just that. Analysis by the Wall Street Journal shows the “real price tag” of a government-run system is a “blowout” that “will overwhelm even the House Democrats’ huge tax increases, Medicare spending cuts and other ‘pay fors.’”
Top Democrats Call Health Care Opponents “Un-American.”
In a sharply worded series of press releases and an op-ed in USA Today, Washington Democrats have labeled those who oppose their government takeover of health care “un-American,” “rapid right wing extremists,” and other outrageous euphemisms. Not only is this reprehensible, it begs the question: why would anyone want people running their health care who think it is “un-American” to question them? And it’s more proof that we don’t need politicians getting between doctors and patients.
American Workers, Not Government Spending, Will Boost the Economy.
Another 247,000 Americans lost their jobs in July. President Obama promised the unemployment rate wouldn’t rise past 8 percent if Congress quickly passed a trillion-dollar “stimulus” spending bill. Today it’s 9.4 percent nationally and more than 11 percent here in Ohio. The Democratic health care proposal would destroy even more jobs. Only the hard work and ingenuity of the American people will bring our economy back – not big government spending.
News You Can Use.
- Washington Post: Championing the Status Quo
- The Hill: Boehner calls Pelosi & Hoyer op-ed ‘reprehensible’
- Politico: Deficit hits record $1.3 trillion for July
- WSJ: ObamaCare’s Real Price Tag
What Do You Think?
With the federal deficit reaching a once-unthinkable $1.3 trillion (and it’s only August), we have a lot of work ahead of us to pull the country out of the red ink. That’s why I want to thank you again for your continued support. Enjoy the rest of your week and please keep me informed of the issues on your radar.
Sincerely,
John Boehner
Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing
July 23, 2009
By Jackie Kucinich
Roll Call Staff
Democrats are preventing Republican House Members from sending their constituents a mailing that is critical of the majority’s health care reform plan, blocking the mailing by alleging that it is inaccurate.
House Republicans are crying foul and claiming that the Democrats are using their majority to prevent GOP Members from communicating with their constituents.
The dispute centers on a chart (view PDF) created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee to illustrate the organization of the Democratic health care plan.
At first glance, Brady’s chart resembles a board game: a colorful collection of shapes and images with a web of lines connecting them.
But a closer look at the image reveals a complicated menagerie of government offices and programs that Republicans say will be created if the leading Democratic health care plan becomes law.
In a memo sent Monday to Republicans on the House franking commission, Democrats argue that sending the chart to constituents as official mail would violate House rules because the information is misleading.
In their eight-point memo, which was obtained by Roll Call, Democrats identify a litany of areas where they believe the chart is incorrect.
For example, Democrats argue that the chart depicts a “Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund” that is “simply a recipient of IRS funds, with no outflow. … This is false.”
The chart’s illustration of low-income subsidies is also “misleading and false,” Democrats argue.
Congressional rules for franked mail bar Members from using taxpayer-funded mail for newsletters that use “partisan, politicized or personalized” comments to criticize legislation or policy.
The dispute over Brady’s chart is being reviewed by the franking commission, which must approve any mail before it can be sent. No decision had been made on the matter by press time.
Brady adamantly denied that the chart was misleading and said Democrats are simply threatened by the content of the graphic.
“I think their review was laughable,” Brady said. “It’s … downright false in most of the cases. The chart depicts their health care plan as their committees developed it.”
“The chart reveals how their health care bureaucracy works, and people are frightened by it,” he added. “So this is their effort to try and discredit” the chart.
Republican Members have made 20 requests to mail a version of the chart to their constituents and have been told that the requests are being delayed while the commission reviews allegations that the chart is misleading.
“Hiding the truth about wildly unpopular policies is a Democrat specialty,” said one GOP aide. “I’d like to see the flow chart on how Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi plans on implementing the open and transparent government she keeps promising everyone.”
“We have initiated discussions with the minority to try and resolve current differences and are operating in good faith to achieve that goal,” said Kyle Anderson, a spokesman for House Administration Chairman Robert Brady (D-Pa.). The committee has oversight of the commission.
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), ranking member of the committee and a member of the franking commission, said through a spokeswoman that he is also aware of the situation and is working with the members of the franking commission to resolve the differences, but he added that he believed Democrats on the commission were overreaching.
“He strongly believes that the franking commission does not have the authority to deny Member communications based on partisan differences of pending legislation,” said Salley Collins, a spokeswoman for Lungren.
The franking commission is made up of three Democrats and three Republicans.
Republicans quickly embraced Brady’s chart, and over the past week about 50 Members have posted it on their Congressional Web sites or used it in a floor speech. It has also been posted on the home page of the Republican National Committee.
2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_12/news/37125-1.html?type=printer_friendly
Biden will get $250 Social Security bonus from stimulus
Senators to Napolitano: Show us the data
By Michelle Malkin • April 17, 2009 12:58 PM
Senators Coburn, Brownback, DeMint, Burr, Murkowski, Inhofe, and Vitter sent the following letter to DHS Secretary Napolitano yesterday concerning the DHS conservative hit job:
April 16, 2009
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Secretary
The Department of Homeland Security
310 7th street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20528-0150
VIA FASCMILLE
Dear Secretary Napolitano,
We write today concerning the release of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.
While we agree that we must fight extremists who are both foreign and domestic we are troubled by some of the statements your department included as fact in the report titled above, without listing any statistical data to back up such claims.
First, your report states that “Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists…” without listing any data to support such a vile claim against our nation’s veterans.
Second, the report states that the millions of Americans who believe in the Second Amendment are a potential threat to our national security. Why? Do you have statistics to prove that law-abiding Americans who purchase a legal product are being recruited by so-called hate groups?
Thirdly, the report states that those that believe in issues such as pro-life legislation, limited government, and legal versus illegal immigration are potential terrorist threats. We can assure you that these beliefs are held by citizens of all races, party affiliation, male and female, and should not be listed as a factor in determining potential terror threats. A better word usage would be to describe them as practicing their First Amendment rights.
Also, you list those that bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India as being potential rightwing extremists. We would suggest that the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry to foreign countries are not potential terror threats, but rather honest Americans worried about feeding their families and earning a paycheck.
In closing, we support the mission of DHS in protecting our country from terror attacks and are proud of the many DHS employees who make this possible in conjunction with our state and local law enforcement. We ask that DHS not use this report as a basis to unfairly target millions of Americans because of their beliefs and the rights afforded to them in the Constitution. We also ask that you provide us with the data that support the unfair claims listed in the report titled above and to present us with the matrix system used in collecting and analyzing this data?
Finally, we look forward to your prompt reply and we offer our assistance to DHS in our shared effort to fight terrorism both home and abroad by using data that is accurate and independent of political persuasion.
Cybersecurity Act of 2009
S 773 IS
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 773
To ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cyber security defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 1, 2009
Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, and Mr. NELSON of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
A BILL
To ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.
Under the guise of safety, the bill would grant a White House appointed cybersecurity “czar” unprecedented authority to shut down private domestic networks or limit Internet traffic in a “critical” information network during a cybersecurity emergency. What distinguishes a critical information network or constitutes a cybersecurity emergency would be determined by the president. The act would also impart authority to the Commerce Department to track cybersecurity threats and override any existing laws, regulations, rules, or policies restricting access to security data from private networks.The bill would not only make the president more powerful, but it would also allow the Secretary of Commerce access to all information on a network, which could make the network less safe and more vulnerable to intruders or terrorists. Yet the senators remain resolute to remedy their perceived crisis. Rockefeller insists on protecting critical infrastructure at all costs” and Snowe demands swift action to avoid “a cyber-Katrina.” Their rhetoric of a looming crisis matches the rhetoric manufactured for the bailout and stimulus bills, given that the bills required drastic intervention and immediate action with little or no consideration for a downside or potential harm.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10134Cybersecurity Bill Proposes Unprecedented Government Power Over the Internet – A cybersecurity bill introduced today in the Senate would give the federal government extraordinary power over private sector Internet services, applications and software. The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 would, for example, give the President unfettered power to shut down Internet traffic in emergencies or disconnect any critical infrastructure system or network on national security grounds. The bill would grant the Commerce Department the ability to override all privacy laws to access any information about Internet usage in connection with a new role in tracking cybersecurity threats. The bill, introduced by Sens. John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe, would also give the government unprecedented control over computer software and Internet services, threatening innovation, freedom and privacy. CDT President and CEO Leslie Harris said, “The cybersecurity threat is real, but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy.” April 01, 2009


