Who's the Masked Senator?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by motivez

There should be discusison on the floor before a vote, for everyone not in that committee, but I'm pretty sure it's standard procedure to have something like that anyway isn't it? If someone has questions?

If this had been brought up an hour before they were going to end the session I'd have no problem with Byrd's hold... Obviously they weren't THAT busy because if there had been that much other business they wouldn't have had room on the daily schedule to call a vote on it prior to the break.

I think Byrd has something to hide, just like Stevens probably does

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Publius

This bill was in committee for quite a while, it isn't like a Senator hopped up 10 minutes before the end of the session and said, "hey guys, I've got this great idea on gov't transparency, let's vote on it now."

it was going to go to the floor of the Senate to be passed the same day it was approved in committee - without debate, discussion or amendment - or even for members outside of the committee a chance to look at it

that doesn't live up to the standards the Senate should be held to

[Publius]

Originally Posted by thomez

it was going to go to the floor of the Senate to be passed the same day it was approved in committee - without debate, discussion or amendment - or even for members outside of the committee a chance to look at it

that doesn't live up to the standards the Senate should be held to

That isn't how the senate works though, if it's on the floor they can't just call an immediate vote without any discussion of it. Robert's Rules of Order, which our Senate adheres to pretty religiously, forbids it. Byrd might be SAYING that was what would have happened, but I question if it actually would have happened unless no one intended to discuss it in the first place.

[motivez]

Proof that there wouldn't have been debate on the floor about it if someone had a concern?

This isn't a new bill that was drafted overnight and passed without anyone having a chance to read it like the Patriot Act was, so I'm not sure that's really a valid comparison.

[Publius]

Also, we're glazing over an important fact... If Byrd was concerned about it for such valid and worthwhile reasons, why place his hold secretly? If his goal was to defend the American people from unread legislation, why not be public about it instead of this cloak and dagger shit?

Byrd is spinning like the rest, and best, of them.

[motivez]

Yeah, that's true. Placing a secret hold says to me, I don't want this bill to pass because I have something to hide that this might expose, which would be bad for my career.

Byrd has lost a lot of respect from me. Stevens lost it awhile ago with his bridge to no where that his people didn't want, and then him being bought by the telecom industries over net neutrality.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Publius

That isn't how the senate works though, if it's on the floor they can't just call an immediate vote without any discussion of it. Robert's Rules of Order, which our Senate adheres to pretty religiously, forbids it. Byrd might be SAYING that was what would have happened, but I question if it actually would have happened unless no one intended to discuss it in the first place.

no, trust me, this Congress has not operated like any before it and they do suspend debate on bills and stick them to vote quite often - and Byrd has been kicking and screaming about it for the past 5 years.

[motivez]

Why this bill though? Why not some other grossly overporked spending bill? And why secret?

Why a bill that allows more transparency in government by creating a database that all citizens can check?

Even if his motivations were pure, you have to admit, it looks pretty bad.

[beez]

Originally Posted by motivez

Even if his motivations were pure, you have to admit, it looks pretty bad.

Yeah I don't understand why the hold had to be secret. I don't think I believe these two guys.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by motivez

Why this bill though? Why not some other grossly overporked spending bill? And why secret?

Why a bill that allows more transparency in government by creating a database that all citizens can check?

Even if his motivations were pure, you have to admit, it looks pretty bad.

Of all the bills that pass through the Senate, he chooses this one to take a stand on after five years? Add to that the fact that he did it in secret... It just stinks of ulterior motives.

[Publius]

I know you like and respect Byrd thomez, I respect his knowledge as well, but the man has made a bad and suspect move this time around.

[thomez]

what committee did this come out of and was either Byrd or Stevens a member or leader in said committee?

[Ardentfrost]

I saw Byrd speaking one evening on C-SPAN, and in the middle of a sentence he looked down and paused for a good 20-30 seconds... I honestly thought he had died. Then suddenly, he completed his sentence and kept going.

What a crazy dude.

Anyone see the Jon Stewart bit where he did a "Crotchety Old Man Show-Down" between Stevens and Byrd? That was funny.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by thomez

what committee did this come out of and was either Byrd or Stevens a member or leader in said committee?

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee ... Stevens is on the committee, Byrd is not.

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

[thomez]

Originally Posted by motivez

Why this bill though? Why not some other grossly overporked spending bill? And why secret?

Why a bill that allows more transparency in government by creating a database that all citizens can check?

Even if his motivations were pure, you have to admit, it looks pretty bad.

pork requires amendment and debate, more than this bill was destined to recieve

often the bills with the greatest intentions are those that are the biggest problems

some of you guys are taking the name and summary of the bill and thinking it was a godsend but we have no idea what else it might include

[Publius]

Originally Posted by thomez

pork requires amendment and debate, more than this bill was destined to recieve

often the bills with the greatest intentions are those that are the biggest problems

some of you guys are taking the name and summary of the bill and thinking it was a godsend but we have no idea what else it might include

Full text, as amended in committee:
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Full text, as it was sent to committee:
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

[motivez]

Can you show some link proving that there wasn't going to be any debate and discussion about the bill?

Here's the actual text of the bill:

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Introduced in Senate)

S 2590 IS

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2590

To require full disclosure of all entities and organizations receiving Federal funds

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 6, 2006

Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. CARPER, and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To require full disclosure of all entities and organizations receiving Federal funds

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006'.

SEC. 2. FULL DISCLOSURE OF ENTITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDING.

(a) In General-

(1) WEBSITE- Effective beginning January 1, 2007 and subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the Office of Management and Budget shall ensure the existence and operation of a single updated searchable database website accessible by the public at no cost that includes for each entity receiving Federal funding--

(A) the name of the entity;

(B) the amount of any Federal funds that the entity has received in each of the last 10 fiscal years;

(C) an itemized breakdown of each transaction, including funding agency, program source, and a description of the purpose of each funding action;

(D) the location of the entity and primary location of performance, including the city, State, congressional district, and country;

(E) a unique identifier for each such entity and parent entity, should the entity be owned by another entity; and

(F) any other relevant information.

(2) INITIAL DATA- Effective January 1, 2007, the website shall include data for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

(3) PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS- Not later than January 1, 2009, information required by this section shall be posted on the website for fiscal years 1999 through 2005.

(b) Definitions- In this section:

(1) ENTITY- The term `entity'--

(A) includes--

(i) a corporation;

(ii) an association;

(iii) a partnership;

(iv) a limited liability company;

(v) a limited liability partnership;

(vi) any other legal business entity;

(vii) grantees, contractors, and, on and after October 1, 2007, subgrantees and subcontractors; and

(viii) any State or locality; and

(B) does not include--

(i) an individual recipient of Federal assistance;

(ii) a Federal employee; or

(iii) a grant or contract of a nature that could be reasonably expected to cause damage to national security.

(2) FEDERAL FUNDING- The term `federal funding'--

(A) means Federal financial assistance and expenditures that include grants, contracts, subgrants, subcontracts, loans, awards and other forms of financial assistance; and

(B) does not include credit card transactions or minor purchases.

(3) SEARCHABLE DATABASE WEBSITE- The term `searchable database website' means a website that allows the public to--

(A) search Federal funding by name of entity, parent entity, or type of industry, geography, including location of the entity and the primary location of the performance, amounts and types of federal funding, program sources, type of activity being performed, time factors such as fiscal years or multiple fiscal years, and other relevant information; and

(B) download data included in subparagraph (A) including outcomes from searches.

(c) Website- The database website established by this section--

(1) shall not be considered in compliance if it links to FPDS, Grants.gov or other existing websites and databases, unless each of those sites has information from all agencies and each category of information required to be itemized can be searched electronically by field in a single search;

(2) shall provide an opportunity for the public to provide input about the utility of the site and recommendations for improvements; and

(3) shall be updated not later than 30 days after the award of any assistance requiring a posting.

(d) Agency Responsibilities- The Director of OMB shall provide guidance to agency heads to ensure compliance with this section.

(e) Report- The Director of OMB shall annually report to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform on implementation of the website that shall include data about the usage and public feedback on the utility of the site, including recommendations for improvements. The annual report shall be made publicly available on the website.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Publius

Also, we're glazing over an important fact... If Byrd was concerned about it for such valid and worthwhile reasons, why place his hold secretly? If his goal was to defend the American people from unread legislation, why not be public about it instead of this cloak and dagger shit?

Byrd is spinning like the rest, and best, of them.

[thomez]

so the holds are lifted, the bill will be back for normal Senate procedures, up for debate, discussion, and amendment in normal time rather than the 11th hour ... can't wait to see the results!

if Byrd and Stevens have something to hide we'll see them fighting this, right?

[Publius]

Further, the bill passed unanimously in committee on July 27th. The Senate did not go into recess until August 7th.

Assuming it was not available for everyone to get a copy of until the next day, that's still 10 days between referral out of committee and when the Senate went into recess, more than enough time to review a bill that took me all of 8 minutes to read BOTH versions of.