Democrat Senate Passed 94% of Bills without Debate or Roll Call Vote
--by Josiah Ryan, July 28, 2008
Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) dismissed Democratic claims of obstructionism and expressed outrage last week over a government report that shows the majority of bills that have passed in the Democrat-controlled Senate of the 110th Congress have done so without any debate or even a vote.
“The U.S. Senate has a nine percent approval rating, because the American people believe that much of our work is done in secret with no debate, no transparency and no accountability,” Coburn told reporters at press conference Wednesday at the Capitol.
“This report shows that the reality is worse than the public’s fears. Instead of encouraging open debate, I’m disappointed that Majority Leader Reid often chooses secrecy or demagoguery,” he added.
Coburn was referring to a non-partisan study released on June 10 by the government’s Congressional Research Service (CRS), which indicates that 855 of the 911 bills passed by the Senate of the 110th Congress have been streamlined by Democratic Party leadership with a procedural tactic known as Unanimous Consent (UC), which requires no debate or even a vote.
With the Senate’s traditional August recess about to start, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has repeatedly accused Republicans, however, and especially Coburn and DeMint, of blocking UC on legislation that he says is critical to the well-being of many Americans.
There's your Democratic controlled Senate for ya. The Democratic controlled Senate so superior to the previous Senate it's intellectually incapable of debating the issues.
12 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Coburn and DeMint have a reputation for reading and objecting to bills that would have otherwise passed without debate or objection, Bryan Darling, director of Senate relations for the conservative Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com.
Reid has also objected to a procedural tactic know as filibuster, which Republicans have used to block legislation they oppose.
“I had out here earlier today our Velcro chart, 79 [Republican] filibusters,” said Reid on June 25. “Is it any wonder that the House seats that came up during the off-year went Democratic? Is it any wonder that the State of Mississippi sent us a Democratic House Member? ... It is no wonder because they see what is going on over here.”
Reid was referring to a flip chart that the Democrats use to tally the number of GOP filibusters. As of Friday, July 25, there were 85 Republican filibusters, according to Reid’s press office.
On Thursday, Reid introduced the Advance America's Priorities Act, which is nicknamed the “Coburn Omnibus” because it patches together 40 bills, many of which Coburn has already stopped from passing through the Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Reid’s press secretary, Jim Manley, told The Hill on June 27 that the omnibus is a reaction to Coburn’s obstruction.
"Look what happened last time we did this: Sen. Coburn held up action on dozens of bills for narrow, personal reasons, demanding debate and four amendments,” said Manley.
“These bills were held up for months. The Senate had to waste precious time to allow him to offer a few amendments. That is not debate and amendment. It is abuse, obstruction and delay," he said.
"Things have gotten so bad that Republican senators have approached Reid to ask that their bills be included in the package," Manley added.
But Coburn said on Wednesday that forcing costly bills before Congress right before a recess is typical of the Democratic leadership’s approach to legislating.
“They [Democrats] have tried to ram them [bills] through right before recess to pressure us to give up,” said Coburn. “But senators shouldn’t fear debate on these important bills.
“It’s in the best traditions of our republic to demand the Senate actually do its job and have a public debate on bills that expand government and increase the burden on taxpayers. Senator Reid can complain all he wants, but Republicans represent millions of Americans whose voices are being silenced by Democrat strong-arm tactics,” he added.
"...that would have otherwise passed without debate or objection..."
Considering the fact that much of what the Senate does is impose laws upon the people of the United States, largely without OUR consent... why shouldn't someone with power to do so object to a lack of debate? Filibustering? Dems filibustered, and are currently ignoring, judicial nominees left and right.
Senator Coburn has it right...
"...senators shouldn’t fear debate on these important bills."
On the matter of Dem judicial appointments the last numbers I heard is that Dem's objected irrevocably to 9 of Pres. Bush's more than 80 judicial appointments. Dem's were fillibustering votes on those 9 candidates.
None that I can see.
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
It is an irresponsible outrage for Senate Democrats to threaten a filibuster of a man of distinction who has been unanimously rated "Well Qualified" by the American Bar Association, and endorsed by sixteen Latino groups, including the League of United Latin American Citizens, the U.S.'s oldest and largest Hispanic civil rights organization.
"Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Democratic Senators also objected to the refusal by the Office of the Solicitor General to release samples of Estrada's writings while employed there. Republicans, however, stated that the Democratic concerns were actually just an attempt to deny Estrada a circuit court seat because of his conservatism."
"Some observers claimed that the Democrats also wished to avoid giving Bush points with Hispanic voters. The Democrats hotly contested this; however, internal memos to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups' desire to keep Estrada off the court because his Latino heritage made him "especially dangerous" as a potential future Supreme Court nominee."
"After twenty-eight months in political limbo and a protracted six month long battle using the filibuster, Estrada withdrew his name from further consideration on September 4, 2003.[4] Bush nominated Thomas B. Griffith in his place, who was confirmed in 2005."
I have a handkerchief if you need to wipe the egg off your face.
That Estrada withdrew his nomination doesn't make some really powerful point in favor the arguably unconstitutional obstruction on the part of Congressional Democrats: two nominees spent a total of forty-one months -- almost three and a half years, nearly a full presidential term -- in congressional limbo to fill a single circuit court seat.
And you think EL has egg on his face just because Estrada eventually withdrew his nomination?
It isn't unusal for parties to block presidential appointments. Bill Clinton at the end of his two terms was still awaiting Senate approval for some people he appointed in his first term. George Bush Sr. has appointees still waiting too. So did Reagan.
George Bush last time I checked had nominated 80+ judicial appointees. Less than two dozen are left waiting for approval. It's a non-issue, ginned up by spin-meisters. Don't be sheep.
Luckily we have a tool called Google news. Go to www.news.google.com and select any year previous to 2006. Then search for “Reed filibuster”, soon your screen will be filled up with quotes from Reed and his use of the filibuster.