Only Two Senators Present to pass $600-mill Border Security Bill by Unanimous Consent

[sharpsteve2003]

The Senate has approved a roughly $600-million bill aimed at boosting border security.

Senators also passed a resolution honoring former Senator Ted Stevens.

Both measures passed quickly with only two senators present in a process known as "unanimous consent."

http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=309945

[Aratus]

either the two senators expect less 'flac' than i think they will get for their votes on these bills
or we have 98 senators who might have the shock of their lives on the day they all expect to
be re-elected. if a YEAH vote for either bill was a total instance of political suicide, then what
would the fine art of a slinking out of the chamber be this november or even in 2012 or 2014?

[sharpsteve2003]

Here is Schumer presenting the bill
http://www.breitbart.tv/senate-passes-border-bill/

[malkusm]

Wait, don't they need quorum to approve anything?

[specsaregood]

either the two senators expect less 'flac' than i think they will get for their votes on these bills
or we have 98 senators who might have the shock of their lives on the day they all expect to
be re-elected. if a YEAH vote for either bill was a total instance of political suicide, then what
would the fine art of a slinking out of the chamber be this november or even in 2012 or 2014?

No, it is because this way the democrats can pass something that the majority of americans approve of BUT have plausible deniability for part of their base that is for keeping the borders wide open.

[Brian4Liberty]

Lol! And they added a tax on companies that have more that 50% H1-Bs to pay for it, as that is not what the H1-B program was created for. Gee, Chuckie admits that even the "legal" immigration process has been corrupted.

[Stary Hickory]

Hmm well I am for Border security if it does do what the title suggests(this is not always the case).

[Brian4Liberty]

Hmm well I am for Border security if it does do what the title suggests(this is not always the case).

Yeah, even if the money gets approved, where will it really go? They usually redirect the money before it actually goes to Border security.

Passing this with just two Senators is really fishy. Is this Constitutional?

[TCE]

Wait, don't they need quorum to approve anything?

Nope. They always ask for Unanimous Consent and if someone objects, then they have a vote on it. I have turned on C-Span 2 several times to see Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) passing things through without any debate because no one is in the Senate.

[TCE]

http://www.govtrackinsider.com/articles/2010-08-12/schumer-and-cardin


You can find out more about the border security bill at this link. It’s got $600 million for fences, border “strike forces,” and domestic drones. It’s now ready to be signed into law by President Obama

[Brian4Liberty]

So it sounds like this is all agreed upon beforehand. Any Senator can show up to block it.



Unanimous Consent

From its beginning, the Senate has transacted much of its business by unanimous consent. The Senate's small size, few rules, and informality encouraged the rise of this practice. A single objection ("I object") blocks a unanimous consent request. Even several of the Senate's early rules incorporated unanimous consent provisions to speed the Senate's routine business.

Two types of unanimous consent are prevalent in today's Senate. Simple unanimous consent requests deal with noncontroversial matters, such as senators asking unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of amendments. Complex unanimous consent agreements establish a tailor-made procedure for considering virtually any kind of business that the Senate takes up. They are commonly brokered by the parties' floor leaders and managers. Two fundamental objectives of these accords are to limit debate and to structure the amendment process. As two Senate parliamentarians wrote in the Senate's volume of precedents: "Whereas Senate Rules permit virtually unlimited debate, and very few restrictions on the right to offer amendments, these [unanimous consent] agreements usually limit debate and the right of Senators to offer amendments."

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm

[itshappening]

domestic drones! yay! KILL those immigrants!

[Brian4Liberty]

domestic drones! yay! KILL those immigrants!

I wonder what the true cost is of a drone vs. a couple of guys in a helicopter?

$600 million could hire a lot of agents, and probably some helicopters and pilots, but $600 million is a drop in the bucket to the Military-Industrial complex (for drones and other technology)...

[jmdrake]

Here is Schumer presenting the bill
http://www.breitbart.tv/senate-passes-border-bill/

Chuck Schumer makes me want to hurl! Note that foreign companies doing business over here is a problem for Chucky. Would it be better if these Indian companies were operating from India?

[Southron]

I wonder what the true cost is of a drone vs. a couple of guys in a helicopter?

$600 million could hire a lot of agents, and probably some helicopters and pilots, but $600 million is a drop in the bucket to the Military-Industrial complex (for drones and other technology)...

Probably buy one drone and it will be sent to guard the Hawaiian borders.

[Brian4Liberty]

Probably buy one drone and it will be sent to guard the Hawaiian borders.

That is if they don't go ahead and redirect the money to Unions instead (to buy Democrat campaign ads)...

[oyarde]

That is if they don't go ahead and redirect the money to Unions instead (to buy Democrat campaign ads)...

There is only one drone.

[Mini-Me]

Yeah, even if the money gets approved, where will it really go? They usually redirect the money before it actually goes to Border security.

Passing this with just two Senators is really fishy. Is this Constitutional?

Assuming it's in line with Senate rules, I believe the method is technically Constitutional. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to arbitrarily make the rules governing its own proceedings.

As for the bill itself...that comes back to the debate about the federal government's powers over the national border.

If "drones" means what I think it does...that creeps me the f' out, and it makes me consider more than ever that this border security may eventually be used to keep us in.

[paulitics]

We need to remember that this border security may not be for keeping illegals out, but for keeping YOU in. Drones, not cool.

[sharpsteve2003]

If this is an example of the rules they play by then we should go to the senate and house, start a session and appoint ourselves temporary Reps and begin voting on repealing a lot of laws. Seems like as long as you are in the Capital, holding a gavel and have one other person to play along, you can do whatever you want.

[Romulus]

Domestic Drones? Oh goodie. Where's the 600 million coming from again?

[sharpsteve2003]

Domestic Drones? Oh goodie. Where's the 600 million coming from again?

Check this. Schumer explains how this is paid for.

Here is Schumer presenting the bill
http://www.breitbart.tv/senate-passes-border-bill/

[ElCount]

This Senate maneuver was pathetic, this is how our elected officials uphold democracy in our good name. I agree that there ought to be a quorum requirement in the rules of the Senate, both houses are always pulling parliamentary stunts in order to ram things through and this has got to be one of the lowest of the low. 2 Senators!?

Does anyone have any information on what went on in the House? Since there was only one vote in each chamber, that tells me the House passed the same bill but I don't know if they pulled some kind of stunt like this to pass it. There wasn't a roll call vote, so I don't think the vote was recorded. I'm very interested to see how the votes went in the House.

The bill itself seems to just appropriate money to different bureaucracies for "the holy purpose of combatting illegal immigration".

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-6080

[Aratus]

so if obama signs it, 98% of the senate can then say he signed it but THEY did not vote for it?

[johngr]

Chickenshits.