Just a quick post..EVERYONE should be watching C-Span right now!

[bush_is_wacko]

I'm signing off to do so myself.

[villager]

1. why?

n/t

[Broken Acorn]

2. lol...nice post n/t

[Connie_Corleone]

3. By the time I get C-Span up on my computer...

it'll be over...whatever it is.

[Ian David]

4. Which C-SPAN?

C-SPAN2, about expelling and arresting people from congress who fail to appear for something? (I started watching late).

edited to say C-SPAN2.

Clinton is on C-SPAN1, talking about the tsunami.

[glitch]

5. Rep Nadler in the House taking about unconstitutional amendment

re continuation of House under catastrophy on my CSpan1, CSpan2 is empty Senate floor.

At least on my CSpans. :shrug:

[katinmn]

6. could it be the swearing in of the CBC? I think its live

[Ian David]

9. The speaker says they don't have the authority

I think he says it is un-constitutional, so if they want this rule, they need to ammend the constitution.

Just like with gay marriage.

I could be wrong, I'm having trouble coming up to speed and following this.

[HeeBGBz]

7. They are talking about some change to the constitution

Trying to change the constitution through the backdoor?

I don't really know yet.

They are swearing in some peeps.

I can't quite follow it either.

[bettyellen]

8. not about the election... so wrong forum?

[Ian David]

12. It looks like (and I could be wrong)

That they want an ammendment that if a congress person fails to report to Washington during a state of emergency, they will be arrested and expelled from Congress.

Can anyone verify, clarify, or correct?

Whatever it is, they're taking a rollcall vote now for the next 13 minutes.

Looks like, "House Resloution HR 5"

[cally]

13. What??? Can someone verify this?..nt

[Deb]

14. They (GOP) wanted to change the definition of House quorum

during an attack to consist of 2/3 of the members at attendance. Freaking Weasels.

[Ian David]

18. I think I found SOMETHING...

Here is a .PDF document on the CSPAN website:

http://www.c-span.org/pdf/ruleschange.pdf
Adopting rules for the One Hundred Ninth Congress.

But if I heard correctly, someone DID propose an amendment to this bill that subject absentee members to expulsion and arrest.

But I may have mis-understood.



(f) PROVISIONAL QUORUM. — In clause 5 of rule XX, redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and insert after paragraph (b) the following new paragraph: “(c) (1) If the House should be without a quorum due to catastrophic circumstances, then ⎯ “(A) until there appear in the House a sufficient number of Representatives to constitute a quorum among the whole number of the House, a quorum in the House shall be determined based upon the provisional number of the House; and “(B) the provisional number of the House, as of the close of the call of the House described in subparagraph (3)(C), shall be the number of Representatives responding to that call of the House. “(2) If a Representative counted in determining the provisional number of the House thereafter ceases to be a Representative, or if a Representative not counted in determining the provisional number of the House thereafter appears in the House, the provisional number of the House shall be adjusted accordingly. “(3) For the purposes of subparagraph (1), the House shall be considered to be without a quorum due to catastrophic circumstances if, after a motion under clause 5(a) of rule XX has been disposed of and without intervening adjournment, each of the following occurs in the stated sequence: “(A) A call of the House (or a series of calls of the House) is closed after aggregating a period in excess of 72 hours (excluding time the House is in recess) without producing a quorum. “(B) The Speaker ⎯ “(i) with the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, receives from the Sergeant-at-Arms (or his designee) a catastrophic quorum failure report, as described in subparagraph (4); “(ii) consults with the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader on the content of that report; and “(iii) announces the content of that report to the House. “(C) A further call of the House (or a series of calls of the House) is closed after aggregating a period in excess of 24 hours (excluding time the House is in recess) without producing a quorum. “(4)(A) For purposes of subparagraph (3), a catastrophic quorum failure report is a report advising that the inability of the House to establish a quorum is attributable to catastrophic
3
circumstances involving natural disaster, attack, contagion, or similar calamity rendering Representatives incapable of attending the proceedings of the House. “(B) Such report shall specify the following: “(i) The number of vacancies in the House and the names of former Representatives whose seats are vacant. “(ii) The names of Representatives considered incapacitated. “(iii) The names of Representatives not incapacitated but otherwise incapable of attending the proceedings of the House. “(iv) The names of Representatives unaccounted for. “(C) Such report shall be prepared on the basis of the most authoritative information available after consultation with the Attending Physician to the Congress and the Clerk (or their respective designees) and pertinent public health and law enforcement officials. “(D) Such report shall be updated every legislative day for the duration of any proceedings under or in reliance on this paragraph. The Speaker shall make such updates available to the House. “(5) An announcement by the Speaker under subparagraph (3)(B)(iii) shall not be subject to appeal. “(6) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to a proposal to create a vacancy in the representation from any State in respect of a Representative not incapacitated but otherwise incapable of attending the proceedings of the House. “(7) For purposes of this paragraph: “(A) The term ‘provisional number of the House’ means the number of Representatives upon which a quorum will be computed in the House until Representatives sufficient in number to constitute a quorum among the whole number of the House appear in the House. “(B) The term ‘whole number of the House’ means the number of Representatives chosen, sworn, and living whose membership in the House has not been terminated by resignation or by the action of the House.”. (g) POSTPONEMENT OF CERTAIN VOTES. – In clause 8(a)(2) of rule XX, add at the end the following new subdivisions: “(G) The question of agreeing to a motion to reconsider or the question of agreeing to a motion to lay on the table a motion to reconsider. “(H) The question of agreeing to an amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole.”.

[Deb]

21. Thanks, and a link to Rule changes

These are pdf files

http://www.house.gov/rules/rulespack_109.htm

maybe the mods would like this thread moved?

[bush_is_wacko]

29. Yes, and I' m so sorry that I left that cryptic message...

I have the slowest computer on the face of the earth, and can't watch C-span and concentrate on the computer at the same time. They are debating this information. They did mention something regarding arresting any member that refused to show up and replacing him/her. I can't find it in the proposal. Anyone else see it?

Going back to TV to watch Rep.Louise Slaughter Dem. NY. She claims the ethics committee if deadlocked will be able to kill the investigation of anyone under investigation. Very good stuff

BTW- Sorry if you think this is in the wrong board. I think it is most important with regards to how our Senators act on the 6th!

[Eye_on_prize]

32. I see nothing in RuleChanges about arresting people, but these two

sections talk about 1) 'provisional quorum' under emergency situations..and 2) placing limitations on ability to launch investigations against members.

(h)Provisional quorum. Provides for continuity of legislative operations in the House in the event of catastrophic circumstances. The rule allows for the House to conduct business with a provisional quorum only after a motion to compel members attendance, as prescribed under clause 5(a) of rule XX, has been disposed of and the following occur in sequence without the House adjourning: (A) A call of the House or a series of calls of the House totaling 72 hours without producing a quorum; (B) the Speaker, with the Minority and Majority Leaders, receive from the Sergeant-at-Arms (or his designee) a catastrophic quorum failure report and shall consult with the Minority and Majority Leaders on the contents of such report and shall announce the contents of such report to the House; and (C) A further call of the House or series of calls are conducted for a total of 24 hours without producing a quorum. A catastrophic quorum failure report is defined as a report advising that the inability of the House to establish a quorum is attributable to catastrophic circumstances involving natural disaster, attack, contagion, or similar calamity rendering Members incapable of being present. The report shall be prepared on the basis of the most authoritative information available after consultation with the Attending Physician, the Clerk and pertinent public heath and law enforcement officials. A catastrophic quorum failure report shall describe the number of vacancies in the House, the names of Members considered to be incapacitated, the names of Members not incapacitated, but otherwise incapable of being present, and the names of Members unaccounted for. The report shall be updated every legislative day and such updates shall be made available to the House.

(k)(2)Restore presumption of innocence. Provides that no action will be taken on a complaint unless the Chairman and Ranking Minority member of the Standards Committee, or the Committee itself, find within 45 days that further investigation is merited by the facts of the complaint, maintaining the presumption of innocence. Currently, if the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member take no action on a properly filed complaint within 45 days, the matter automatically goes to an investigative committee.

[Deb]

34. I missed any mention of arrest but

agree that this thread belongs here, glad others do too.

[roenyc]

59. now that was funny n/t

[FreepFryer]

10. I'm seeing the Senate Quorum call on CSPAN2 right now n/t

[Pithy Cherub]

11. A wee bit more information would

be appreciated!

[Ian David]

15. I don't think the 109th congress is online yet

http://thomas.loc.gov/

108th congress bills
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c108bills.html

109th congress bills
Not Found
The requested URL /home/c109bills.html was not found on this server.

[Ian David]

17. I'm still coming up empty

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=%22109th+congress%22+rules+quorum+rules+emergency

[Verve]

16. Huh? Please those of you watching give more info. n/t

[Ian David]

19. Please nominate for the top page

I'm hoping that if more people see it, someone can explain it to me.

224 yay to 192 nay to lay bill on the table.

[Eye_on_prize]

20. 2nd the nomination for the top page!! maybe reframe header too, to reflect

more clearly what this is about may be helpful too. gadzooks.

[Ian David]

23. DeLay yielded his time to Drier from California- Some SCARY stuff!

Today marks the begining of what historians will look back upon as the most productive congress.

Something about mandate.

First presidential majority in 16 years.

More militarism "without appology."

I think he just proposed recognizing a two-state China (yikes)!

Our agenda will be no less audacious.

Economic

tear Wall between american people and dreams erected by liberal majorities

take on over taxation, litigation and regulation

help american families raise children in the values of

protect institution of marriage

protect from activist judges

protect faith in the public square

some may choose this debate to launch personal attacks against the legitimacy of the majority and against congress

too much depends on the success of this congress

I want to remind dems that when repugs were in minority we were a party of ideas

support rules package so we can immediately get to work on behalf of the people who sent us here.

THIS IS SCARY, SCARY SHIT!!!

[understandinglife]

24. Anyone still questioning the importance of 6 Jan 2005?? (n/t)

[Eye_on_prize]

26. Clearly we've touched some raw nerves in *ville

[Eye_on_prize]

25. thanks for the details, 4 those of us who've killed our TV -please lets

keep string alive with updates as this unfolds today. The Rethugs are obviously fighting ...laying ground for dismissing Conyers challenge on Thursday as "anti-democratic, obstructionist and unfair" arrrggghhh. guess the good fight is definately ON!! This business of arresting people is openly fascist and draconian, guess they remember the Texas Democrats flying to OK, huh?

[sepia_steel]

44. Yeah!!

And now Rep. Nancy Pelosi is talking baout "WHY do Republicans want to get rid of the process? This is how we deal with ethics complaints. WHY would they want to keep from having to answer to complaints? (hmmmmm :) ) They changed the rules at the last minute to keep an indicted official in. Only after bi-partisan opposition and PUBLIC OUTCRY did they come to their senses."

Not verbatim AT ALL, but she KICKS ASS!!!!!!! They are trying to play dirty at the last minute, and they are being called on it. :)

[roenyc]

60. She has balls.

i love her. and you know its time they keep saying what they mean and never ever apologize again for anything they say. last year was all about the false outrage of the neo-con. go nancy. and the woman from NY was great too.

[cosmicdot]

68. is this Drier speaking or Delay?

hope I can find a link to the transcript ... very scary indeed

[hraka]

69. Did he REALLY say "repugs"?

he he he

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. They are debating the rules of the 109th Congress

[Ian David]

27. HOLY CRAP!! THEY'RE GUTTING THE ETHICS COMMITTEE!!

You've gotta hear this.

[Ian David]

30. Here's what I've caught

They want to allow indicted members to still serve

If the ethics committee is "tied," then the hearing is dropped and goes to an investigator, "giving the republican majority vetoe power over ethics charges."

They want to abolish the 45-day limit on ethics investigations, which keep them from "burrying issues from public view" until "the clock runs out."

They want more lenient laws about receiving and spending money.

They want to make it against the rules to criticize individuals on the floor, for example, "The congressman used to work for the drug company in question."

And that's just some of it.

As the senator said, "why should we hold a 19 year old boy in the army to a higer ethical standard than congress?"

[Ian David]

31. To protect members who may be "unfairly impuned"

DOES IT SOUND LIKE THEY EXPECT THEY WILL BE INVESTIGATED FOR SOMETHING??

Oh, and they want more control over Homeland Security.

[sepia_steel]

45. HELL YEAH IT DOES!!!

Hahahha this rocks. They cannot be allowed to change the rules.

[bush_is_wacko]

41. God I hope THIS doesn't pass!

I also hope this is enough to MAKE our leaders STAND UP and SPEAK OUT on Thursday. This solidifies the Republican strong-hold on our government every bit as much as the STOLEN ELECTION! I can hardly take my eyes off of this!

[OKthatsIT]

47. DELAY OPENS SPEWING.."We got the Mandate..."

&^$@&@?>":!~{]oi7%^$OLed./lugj:?PIGB?J]-70876%(&$(*$W#i47E%O*^$o0684o08^R$ I WANT HIM ON A SKEWER!

[Chimpanzee]

28. I don't know what this is about, but I'm sure the pukes are up to no good!

[Ian David]

33. They are admitting they can not conform to the ethical standards...

of this house, so they are changing the rules.

They have been anything but honest, and now the rush to the bottom continues.

A house where bad behavior is not reprimanded, but rewarded.

In the face of mounting public scrutiny they have blinked...

The repugs did not find religion on this issue

While repugs try to pull a fast one... the rules package kills in a very significant way the rules standards

Ethics commitee is evenly divided by both parties. Under new rules, there would have to be a majority. After 45 dies, complaints would DIE! Under OLD rules, after 45 days it goes to investigation.

THIS WOULD ALLOW THE REPUBLICANS TO QUASH ANY ETHICS INVESTIGATION!!!!!!!!!!!

Jim McGovern (D) Mass.

[bush_is_wacko]

42. This was such a great argument!

I have to say Hefley is on my shit list permanently for saying he has decided to vote for this. I didn't like him before anyway, but I will now concentrate on trying to get him OUT ASAP. He is not my representative, but he's going to feel the heat over this one!

[Eye_on_prize]

35. WHY has this string dissappeared from the first page of strings?????

WTF!!!

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[Ian David]

36. What can we do about this???

Can we launch ethics investigations RIGHT NOW before the rules change?

This has become clear about the bill:

The ethics committee is made of 5 dems and 5 republicans.

Under the proposed NEW rules, if there is not a majority within 45 days, the complaint will be DISCARDED!

Under the EXISTING rules, if there is not a majority within 45 days, it automatically GOES TO AN INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE!

In other words, either party can vetoe an ethics violation and make sure it does not get investigated.

THIS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO PASS!!

[Ian David]

38. Has this been put on the top page?

Oh, and I think either I was wrong about arresting absentee congress people, or else the proposal was already stricken.

But since the first procedural vote, I've been paying closer attention.

[bettyellen]

40. this is all to help DeLay get away with everything....

it's disgusting....
we are moving to a society where only the fricking citizens are held accountable!
shit, govt and the big corps can do whatever they goddamned want to, no questions asked.

[bush_is_wacko]

43. Bushitler is making his move

Is America going to lay down and die?

[Eye_on_prize]

37. I hope someone with better grasp of legaleze will ferret out the devils

buried in these rule changes, and translate into plain language so as to start a new string on this.... several other questions>
1) are rules actually changed TODAY so as to be in play on the 6th, i.e. do changes take effect immediately, or is there a lag time, to allow for reading and review ..
2) if these rule changes go into effect immediately, then how will this effect plans for Jan 6th challenge?

[Ian David]

39. This is on another thread, too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1119054

[sepia_steel]

46. OH GOD PLEASE VOTE NO EVERYONE

these fucking scoundrels.

[sepia_steel]

48. Man.

This Repug David Dreier is a real piece of shit. He has mentioned something about electronic voting. UGH I AM SO disgusted by this filth.

This can't pass.

[bush_is_wacko]

49. It passed!

WTF is wrong with this country? Why do they want a government with this much power over EVERYTHING!

[sepia_steel]

50. Welcome to fascism.

Where accountability no longer exists and Rethugs reign supreme!

[Ian David]

52. Zero Democrats in favor, Zero Republicans against

It looks like the damn thing passed.
220 to 196

In case there was any question, realize now:

WE ARE NOW OFFICIALLY LIVING IN A FASCIST REGIME!!!!!

[Ian David]

53. They're having a hard time calling to order

I hear some serious shouting going on.

[Ian David]

54. Wait, I think maybe it hasn't officially passed or something. Explain?

They're trying to file a motion to commit. I don't understand.

Now they're ordering "a motion to commit," which CSPAN says is the Dem's last chance to change the bill.


Someone please explain?

[bush_is_wacko]

56. I'm waiting for an explanation as well...

What was the comment regarding Dems last chance to change? It looks like this is another party line vote. This is our NEW form of government. Aren't we all proud of BushCo. and his friggin' MANDATE! I guess I know what a mandate is now, it must be the new word for criminally unethical government control!

[mzmolly]

67. Is the difference between Republicans and Democrats clear now?

I ask that question of those that claim otherwise.

My gawd.

[EuroObserver]

51. Reading attentively here... n/t

[Last Lemming]

55. No--I think this is scarier still

first order of business is more important
quorum issues--in case of emergency--
what f*cking emergency
terrorist attack
computer virus gone rampant
bad flu season?

[txindy]

65. Election challenges?

That wouldn't surprise me. They're covering themselves very early.

[EuroObserver]

57. kick n/t

[Ian David]

58. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS???

I spoke to Patrick Kennedy's office, and his staffer said that the senate can't enforce house ethics rules. It's part of the separation of powers.

If the House won't investigate something, can individual citizens file suits?

Can we have recall initiatives?

Is there a way they can be prosecuted under RICOH... something... ANYTHING??

HOW THE FUCK CAN THIS BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN!!!!!

[roenyc]

61. Welcome to 1984

war is peace

ignorance is strength

and its going to be a long road back to democracy.

[Clark2008]

63. I say sue 'em anyway

Anyone can sue for anything - tie their unethical butts up in paperwork and court proceedings. Then maybe they can't get to the Hill and vote on anything.

[Salomonity]

66. no and no

You can't recall a house member, and they're immune from prosecution during their term in office. Both are nailed down hard in the constitution. You wait two years.

In theory, the house can expell members, but they hardly ever do.

What makes you want to?

[LiberalUprising]

62. KICK

[cosmicdot]

64. do our Democrats and friends on the Hill hear us now?

after 4 years of our pleas, warnings, calls, letters, emails, LOTTEs, blogging, etc.

and, the DJ says: 'Corruption is in the House!'

Will this rule's event be a catalyst for something positive come Thursday when the electoral vote is called for certification?





"All of us, all of us, every member, should be held to the highest of standards. And this speaker -- I -- and any other member should not be held to a double standard."

— Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), January 21, 1993

from B and B
Proud member of the Reality-Based Community:

January 04, 2005

The real story: GOP guts House ethics rules

Every single one of these headlines appears to have missed the larger
story here. Some of these stories missed it entirely. Here it is,
buried deep in the New York Times article:

The proposals would make it harder to proceed with an ethics
investigation by requiring a majority vote of the evenly divided
ethics committee. The current system allows an investigation to begin
automatically if there is no action within 45 days.

From today's headlines:

Washington Post: GOP Abandons Ethics Changes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45573-2005Jan3.html
New York Times: Congress Begins 109th Session After G.O.P. Voids
Ethics Rule
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Congress-Ethics.html?
hp&ex=1104901200&en=c98587cc7d24fa71&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I5D63492A
Los Angeles Times: GOP Backs Off on Ethics Changes
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-
ethics4jan04,1,6321662.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2F61292A
CNN: GOP reverses course over ethics rules
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/03/delay.rule/index.html
MSNBC: New Congress convenes amid ethics issue
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6782969/
ABC News: House GOP Retreats on Weaker Ethics Rules
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=383408
CBS News: GOP Backs Off Ethics Rule Change
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/17/politics/main656140.shtml


http://pmbryant.typepad.com/b_and_b/2005/01/the_real_story_.html