Senator agrees to lift hold on FEMA nominee

[sinkingfeeling]

Source: MSNBC.com

WASHINGTON - A Louisiana Republican has agreed to stop blocking the White House's pick to lead FEMA amid bipartisan criticism that he was leaving the agency vulnerable just a few weeks away from hurricane season.

Sen. David Vitter had put a hold on confirming Craig Fugate at the Federal Emergency Management Agency until FEMA officials provided answers on several lingering questions involving Hurricane Katrina rebuilding.

Vitter said in a letter sent Tuesday to acting FEMA administrator Nancy Ward that he would release his hold.

He said FEMA has offered assurances that the flood-zone rebuilding issues would be resolved, "allowing for the crucial rebuilding of key infrastructure."



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30701469/

[Stellabella]

1. So Diaper Dave caved, huh?

Why he is still a senator is beyond me.

[47of74]

2. Is someone up for reelection next year?

Maybe a certain Senator with a penchant for diapers, perhaps???

[No Elephants]

3. Does anyone know how ONE Senator gets to put a hold on a nominee?

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Been a rule of the Senate for a long time. Any Senator can put a 'hold'

on a bill or nomination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate

A "hold" is placed when the Leader's office is notified that a senator intends to object to a request for unanimous consent from the Senate to consider or pass a measure. A hold may be placed for any reason and can be lifted by a senator at any time. A senator may place a hold simply to review a bill, to negotiate changes to the bill, or to kill the bill. A bill can be held for as long as the senator who objects to the bill wishes to block its consideration.

[No Elephants]

9. Thanks. Never occured to me to google, I am ashamed to say. This rule is nuts, IMO.

[truebrit71]

10. Yes it is. No idea how in the world it is constitutional either...

...

[No Elephants]

13. Although it did not occur to me to google, it did occur to me to check the

Constitution. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I thought I remembered seeing in it that action is taken by a majority unless the Constitution specified a greater proportion. But, I could not find anything like that. A quorum requires a majority. Some things specify a 2/3 vote. That's all I could find. But, my vision is not great.

[AndyTiedye]

14. But for Some Reason it Only Works When THEY Do It

[mayahbird]

4. How does the Republican Party

How does the Republican Party hold so much power when they are not the majority? I remember when Bush was President, the Democratic Party had to hold some meetings in the basement and now they are the majority and still don't have the power to put in whom ever they want? The Republicans Senators are in power even when they are not in power. Isn't that just unbelievable?????

[tom_paine]

6. Exactly. SOMETHING is going on, well beyond the bounds of what we would consider "normal politics"

Nohing is as it seems. Virtually every "official story" we are and have been told is anywhere from partially untrue to a complete falsehood.

What, exactly, it is I do not know and cannot know. I have speculations, butthat is all they are.

It doesn't matter. Nothing is what it seems and the TV is the biggest liar of all.

[aquart]

7. You just keep collecting that tin foil.

It will save you.

[tom_paine]

12. And you just keep asuming every official story is the whole truth.

It will save you...from having to think beyond what you see on TV, which is your gospel.

[uppityperson]

8. k&r for good grief

[bdamomma]

11. they are just being a$$holes.

Vitter what a waste!