Hanoi John

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Ned linked article contains problems. It claims the bill "passed on September 6 by a 410-1 margin." Then it says "The 450-1 votes for the bill..."

Basic errors like that raise a credibility question.

The article also claims that the bill would have authorized "assistance to democratic forces in Vietnam."

The US screamed bloody murder when China gave money to US politicans. Or was this an attempt to create Contras in Vietnam?

Then follow my links. I doubt you will have a problem with their credibility.

[debeest]

After the 2000 election, the Senate split 50-50 and would have gone Republican because of the Vice Presidential tiebreaker vote, but Senator Jeffords became an independent and voted with the Democrats, allowing them to maintain control. I believe that they worked out an agreement whereby half the committee chairs were Demo and half Pub, though I'm not sure. Committee chairs do have great power to keep bills off the committee agenda on their own, although I don't think non-chairs can just "put a hold" on a bill if there's a lot of support for it.

In 2002 the Pubs took over, so Kerry certainly has not been a chair since early 2003. If there was strong support for the bill, it could easily have been passed during the last year.

Can we all agree that (1) Kerry opposed the bill; (2) that was probably for trade reasons; (3) he wasn't the only opponent; (4) both parties usually pay little attention to human rights when an economic consideration is at stake; (5) if the bill still hasn't passed, the blame must be broadly shared by at least near majorities of both parties?

[Ben Kenobi]

(1) Kerry opposed the bill;
(2) that was probably for trade reasons;

Agreed to both.

(3) he wasn't the only opponent;

True, but there was also only one opponent in the house of representatives. I would say the bill had overwhelming support when voted on, but never became lobbied enough to get a Senator to take up the bill, yet.

I see no reason why people cannot write to their Senator now, and ask him to revive the bill.

(4) both parties usually pay little attention to human rights when an economic consideration is at stake;

Normally, but at least the republicans would not have killed the bill in this fashion. They would have let it come to vote, and we would have seen the Senate support.

(5) if the bill still hasn't passed, the blame must be broadly shared by at least near majorities of both parties?

No. Kerry bears the blame because the bill would likely have passed had he allowed the vote. That's why he did not let the bill pass the committee stage, because he felt they did have the support in the Senate to pass the bill.

Then once it got shelved, the senators have had other concerns to deal with. Again, if people lobby for this bill, I can see the republicans reviving and voting on the bill.

[Imran Siddiqui]

(5) if the bill still hasn't passed, the blame must be broadly shared by at least near majorities of both parties?

No. Kerry bears the blame because the bill would likely have passed had he allowed the vote. That's why he did not let the bill pass the committee stage, because he felt they did have the support in the Senate to pass the bill.

Jesus, sucking the Republicans dick too much, Ben? Yes, it's ALL KERRY'S FAULT, EVEN THOUGH THE REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE SENATE! He's that powerful!! Evil! Evil!

Come on. You can't even face the basic truth that if the Republican majority wanted the bill passed, it would have been passed.

In the Senate, sponsors Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Bob Smith (R-NH) invoked an emergency rule to bypass the Foreign Relations Committee and try to bring the bill directly to the Senate floor. This maneuver failed when Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) put a hold on the bill.

Look at the date on the story, Ned. 2002. What about since the Republicans gained power?

[Ben Kenobi]

Kerry bears the blame because the bill would likely have passed had he allowed the vote.

Can you cite any evidence why at the time the bill came to Kerry that it would not have recieved ample support in the Senate?

I can see Kerry killing the bill in committee if he knows that the bill will likely pass in the Senate

If he feels the bill will fail, why not let the bill get to the Senate for a vote?

[CharlesBHoff]

Senator from both parties act very independce from they party when in the Senate. the republician have 52 votes which some of mightnot toe the party line if the republican want to past something which 10 republician donot like you are going to get 11 democrate to vote with you to get it pass. It the matter need 2/3 votes you are going to have problem unless deals are make with the other party. There are 100 senators.

[Ned]

Imran, read this. Holds are informal filibusters that any senator can use.

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Committee on Rules and Administration
Hearing on
Rule XXII of the Senate Rules


June 17, 2003

Good morning. I welcome all of you to our hearing that will explore one of the more esoteric features of this hallowed institution–the hold.

In many ways, this hearing is a follow-up to the hearing I held less than two weeks ago on filibustering nominations; for the power of the hold is inextricably linked to the ability of Senators to filibuster.

You can search far and wide through the rules and precedents of the Senate and you will find no rule that specifically addresses this issue. Holds are an informal custom that reflects the Senate’s practice of requiring unanimous consent to take up and consider most measures. If one Senator objects, the Senate is precluded from considering the measure unless the leader is willing to go through the arduous and drawn out process of invoking cloture.

It has become increasingly common for holds to be placed on nominees and bills for reasons that have nothing to do with the nominee or the bill. Instead, bills and nominations are held hostage because a Senator is trying to leverage something from the Administration or from another Senator. These so-called leverage holds are routinely used by members from both parties.

During my tenure as Majority Leader, I, along with Senator Daschle attempted to address the issue of secret holds. We sent a letter to all Senators and indicated that members placing holds on legislation or nominations would have to notify the sponsor of the legislation and the committee of jurisdiction and the leaders. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of our February, 1999, letter be placed in the record.

Unfortunately, we had no mechanism to enforce those requirements and secret holds continue to plague the Senate.

I believe that holds, whether anonymous, or publicly announced, are an affront to the Senate, the leadership, the Committees and to the individual members of this institution. As leader, I could not establish a rational and timely agenda for the institution to perform its business without having to first consult with, effectively, every other member of the Senate.

One day, a Senator would have a hold on a bill and after I convinced him to lift the hold, the next day I was told another Senator had placed a hold on the same bill. And don’t get me wrong, these weren’t just holds from Democrats, they were holds from some of my best friends on this side of the aisle.

It was not that long ago that the former Chairman of the Energy Committee, Frank Murkowski, came to the floor and announced that every one of the 72 bills his committee had reported, every one of them, had holds. That is an affront to all members of that Committee and to the Senate as an institution.

I commend Senators Grassley and Wyden for their good faith effort to end secret holds by requiring that the names of Senators with holds be published in the Congressional Record. I strongly endorse this effort. Public identification of the Senator holding up legislation or a nomination can be a powerful weapon to eliminate a particular hold, especially a leverage hold.

But I think we need to go further than just publishing names. We need to put teeth into this proposal. And the best way to do that is to change our rules so that motions to proceed offered by the Majority Leader are non-debatable or debatable for one or two hours.

A little used provision in Rule 8 Paragraph 2 provides that motions to proceed to any measure, except a Rules change, are not debatable during the first two hours of a new legislative day. Maybe the leadership should consider using this rule more often.

Alternatively, we should consider a rules change allowing Majority Leader motions to proceed to be non-debatable for a measure that has been reported from a committee and has been on the calendar for a fixed period of time–for example, 30 days. The rule could also provide that within 90 days of an adjournment, motions to proceed by the majority leader would not be debatable on any bill reported from a committee.

Ultimately, I believe that if we adopt the Grassley/Wyden proposal, the public will have greater faith in this institution. Secrecy and anonymity in an institution of the people does not engender trust among our constituents. Holds belong in the wrestling ring, not in this hallowed chamber.

Unfortunately, one thing is certain. If this Committee decides that we should eliminate the secrecy surrounding holds, and we report this resolution, I am sure an anonymous Senator will put a hold on the resolution.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Because of the many witnesses we have today, I would ask that Senator Dodd be allowed to give an opening statement and that other members withhold their statements and have them included in the record.

###

http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2003/061703LottOpen.htm

[Ned]

Kerry never explained why he put the bill on hold, AFAIK.

However, his hold is consistent with his long support of the communist regime.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If one Senator objects, the Senate is precluded from considering the measure unless the leader is willing to go through the arduous and drawn out process of invoking cloture.

If Kerry was the only one who was against it, then cloture is easily accomplished. The fact is that the Republicans don't want this bill through as much as Kerry may not.

Can you cite any evidence why at the time the bill came to Kerry that it would not have recieved ample support in the Senate?

The year since he's been a chair.

However, his hold is consistent with his long support of the communist regime.

And, of course, Bush's continuing of normal trade relations with China is consistent with his long support the communist regime,

[Cookie Monster]

Way to go Kerry!

Let those people get exterminated as long as your still getting your financial benefits from dealing with whomever. Bloodthirsty money chaser. And we want him to be a president?

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Cookie Monster
Way to go Kerry!

Let those people get exterminated as long as your still getting your financial benefits from dealing with whomever. Bloodthirsty money chaser. And we want him to be a president?

Unless we are willing to undertake military action against Vietman we chould do nothing as it is none of our bussienes. How about our support for the party in Cambodia which murrder how many million of people which only Vietman have the mortal cought to get rid of when their free Cambodia from those murderous thug support by neocom in Washington.

[Ben Kenobi]

Imran:

How do you counter this point?

I can see Kerry killing the bill in committee if he knows that the bill will likely pass in the Senate

If he feels the bill will fail, why not let the bill get to the Senate for a vote?

[Ned]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If one Senator objects, the Senate is precluded from considering the measure unless the leader is willing to go through the arduous and drawn out process of invoking cloture.

If Kerry was the only one who was against it, then cloture is easily accomplished. The fact is that the Republicans don't want this bill through as much as Kerry may not.

IF.

However, with the Senate evenly divided, there probably have been no holds overriden in a very long time.

However, his hold is consistent with his long support of the communist regime.

And, of course, Bush's continuing of normal trade relations with China is consistent with his long support the communist regime,

The point, Imran, is that Kerry's vote is consistent with his long term conduct vis-a-vis the communist regime and that corruption may not have been the reason for the hold.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How do you counter this point?

Easy... what proof do you have it would have passed the Senate? There are many bills that are shelved, even though it is known that it may fail in the full Senate.. perhaps because the Senator doesn't want the issue doesn't want to be brought up. Perhaps because he doesn't like the bill at all. Jesse Helms would shelve tons of legislation which would easily get voted down in the full Senate.

However, with the Senate evenly divided, there probably have been no holds overriden in a very long time.

Jan 2003-Feb 2004. Do you see an evenly divided Senate during that time?

The point, Imran, is that Kerry's vote is consistent with his long term conduct vis-a-vis the communist regime and that corruption may not have been the reason for the hold.

And Bush's relations with the Chinese is consistent with his long term conduct vis-a-vis the communist regime. All the way back and prior to his father's dealings with them.

[Ben Kenobi]

perhaps because the Senator doesn't want the issue doesn't want to be brought up.

And why might that be?