(42) comments Back to story

Ray Taft

Your question: ‘Why has it taken so long for something that should have been a no-brainer?’

The answer: Democrats are way too busy trying to get President Trump to do anything else. And if Trump is for something, Democrats are automatically opposed to it. Democrats are way too busy serving their own need for power.

The solution: Dump Democrats, put Republicans in charge of both houses and re-elect President Trump. Only then is there a chance of getting Washington ‘to serve the needs of the people it governs.’

Gary Miller

Ray, Kudoes. No way for me to improve your post.

Wendy Maceo-Melton

Actually, its the Republicans in the Senate that have refused to take up ANY legislation, and instead focus on filling every judicial vacancy. McConnell has openly stated this position several times. McConnell will not even address any bi-partisan bill that is sent to him from the House. So why can't the Senate propose their own legislation? What else is unbelievable is the our President is funneling money from previously passed legislation to "build his wall" something, neither the Republicans, Democrats, or the general public want, evidenced by the Senate's refusal to consider the "Wall" funding when the Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. As it stands today, the only need being served is the President's personal agenda. He disrespects Congress, both parties, and most of or governmental agencies. He's causing this bottle neck preventing our government from meeting the needs of our citizens. More and more power is being grabbed by this president than any other time in history. He's defying court orders, subpoenas, and his own staff over various issues. What we need is to elect someone who is not self-serving like out current President. Make it about the people instead of Donald Trump and his family.

Carlos Ponce

From Texas Congressman Chip Roy:
“Glad to see another member of Congress making clear to speaker Pelosi can’t run the House by fiat. I commend my colleague, Rep. [John] Rose, for objecting to today’s Unanimous Consent on a $19.1 billion-dollar emergency supplemental bill that has been languishing for over months. After today’s objection, which marks the third, it is blatantly clear that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic conference would rather play politics than do the work of the people.

The speaker could have put this bill on the floor last Thursday, shortly after the Senate passed its version while members of the House were still in town. She could have held the House in session the following morning. She chose to close the floor, send everyone home, and then tried to jam the bill through without members present. Major legislation that spends taxpayer dollars should be discussed, debated, and members should cast a vote. That is how our system is set up. That is how it is supposed to operate. Unfortunately, today was yet another example of how the swamp operates.

Our nation is strong enough and compassionate enough to have a responsive and fiscally responsible approach to help people who are hurting in the wake of natural disasters. The truth is we could have passed this disaster bill months ago. In fact, we should have passed something months ago for the federally responsible areas to help Florida, Georgia, Nebraska, and parts of Texas.

Again, there is also no reason that, as we move a disaster supplemental, we should not also move the quite modest $4.4 billion request from OMB Director Russ Vought to ensure DHS and HHS do not run out of money while managing the over 100,000 illegal aliens being apprehended and the Unaccompanied Alien Minor Children being unable to be housed appropriately. Just as we should respond in a responsible manner to the natural disasters, we should respond to the humanitarian crisis occurring at our southern border.

As I’ve said, my hope is that Speaker Pelosi will come to her senses and allow all 435 members the opportunity to have a robust debate and a vote on the Senate-passed version of the disaster supplemental. I know I stand ready to come back to Washington any day to do our job and vote.”
https://roy.house.gov/

Patricia Smothers

Yes, It was Congressman Chip Roy, formerly of Ted Cruz's office, that threw the wrench into the passage of the disaster relief bill that would have aided so many in desperate need of help. He has his own agenda, to build the wall. He is not concerned with those that have been waiting so long for assistance.

Bailey Jones

One need only read the comments to see the problem. Every major piece of legislation is seen as an opportunity to bash the opposition. Members of both parties use disaster relief as an opportunity to grandstand and showcase their "principles", all in service of the ultimate principle of all politicians - winning the next election. We live in a dangerous world - hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, wild fires, droughts - no one is immune from the vagaries of nature. These are only compounded by the disaster that is partisan politics. In a representative democracy, politicians serve those who elect them. In this age of dark money, superpacs and Citizens United, those who elect them are no longer the American people.

Christopher Fluke

Couldn't have said it better! [thumbup]

Miceal O'Laochdha

"Are they putting politics above people?" Even as a rhetorical question it is an extraordinary waste of time to have this question form in one's mind, let alone type it and then have it type-set by another person whose time is also valuable. Now I have wasted a few valuable seconds of my own time repeating it myself. The answer is YES, Captain Obvious; and it has been YES since the first time one human tried to convince another that he was a "Leader".

Paula Flinn

Yes, yes, yes! Sometimes it has to be written.
There should be no debate on a disaster-relief bill. It should be a single issue bill. People are hurting and waiting.

Carlos Ponce

The bill will eventually be passed but Pelosi must follow House rules, procedures. Maybe if she reviews the School House Rock short, "I'm Just a Bill" she'll get it right. The congressman doesn't object to the Bill but to Pelosi's heavy handed lack of proper and established protocol.

Jim Forsythe

The House had passed an earlier $14 billion version of the measure in January, but the legislation has been held up in the Senate amid a fight between President Donald Trump and Democrats over aid to Puerto Rico. Now the House has passed another bill, and it still up to the Senate and the President.
"House Passes $19 Billion Disaster Aid Bill Despite Trump Opposition to Funding for Puerto Rico"
The House passed a bill (6/2/19) that does not include the $4.5 billion request for extra border security, nor should it. Border security should be passed as part of a separate bill.
Friday's measure originally added $3 billion to the earlier House bill to help Midwest states such as Iowa and Nebraska recover from this spring's floods — but it then was successfully amended on the floor numerous times by lawmakers in both parties, who added $1.9 billion to rebuild military bases in Nebraska and Florida, as well as more flood aid for the Midwest.
Even though Puerto Rico was repeatedly told that we would not receive one more dollar in disaster relief, this legislation shows that many in Washington, D.C. understand that Puerto Rico's recovery is not complete.
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, wrote in a statement. "I have said from the beginning that any disaster supplemental that passes this chamber cannot pick and choose which American citizens to help in their time of need.

Carlos Ponce

Most House members had left for the Memorial Day Holiday when Pelosi asked the few that remained for a "Unanimous Consent" vote.
"The failure to pass the bill comes as most members have already left Washington for Memorial Day weekend and the president was about to depart for his overseas trip to Japan."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/disaster-funding-bill-house-vote-on-disaster-aid-bill-stalls-after-republican-member-objects/
"Unanimous"????????? Nancy, you've got some 'splaining to do!

Jim Forsythe

The House had passed an earlier $14 billion version of the measure in January

Carlos Ponce

"The House had passed an earlier $14 billion version of the measure in January." And?
It was lacking the Senate's Amendments. So passing "an earlier version" means DIDDLY SQUAT.

Jim Forsythe

So in passing "an earlier version" the House passed what was needed. The new bill that passed was about the same, but did add aid to new people in need which could have been addressed in a new bill along with any Amendments.
The wait since January, helped the ones in need how?

Jim Forsythe

"House Democrats finally managed to pass a $19.1 billion disaster relief bill Monday, sending the measure on to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it.
The 354-58 vote came after Republican conservatives blocked the bill from advancing on three separate occasions while lawmakers were away last week on recess — an appropriately acrimonious legislative finale after months of partisan discord.
Once it’s law, the bill, H.R. 2157 (116), will unlock billions of dollars in grant funding and reimbursement cash for communities still recovering from hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, extreme flooding, wildfires and typhoons."

Carlos Ponce

354-58, So 412 House members were present for a Roll Call vote. Better than letting a handful of House members decide by "Unanimous Consent". They came off their 10 day Memorial Day Vacation.

Jim Forsythe

Why is it better that H.R. 268, which was passed the House in January, and H.R. 2157 which had to wait for a group to vote, on a bill that was going to pass anyway is a better bill because of the wait? The money is needed, so the wait helped how?
Explain how the communities still recovering from hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, extreme flooding, wildfires and typhoons were better off waiting longer, in receiving the funds needed,
Do you think the people in need care what the vote total was.
It may be better for a politician to wait, but not for the one's in need.
Or is it just putting politics above people?

Carlos Ponce

Why is better? Compare the two.

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, I was asking You, what is the difference in the two bills,besides making the people in need wait longer.
It may be better for a politician to wait, but not for the one's in need.
Or is it just putting politics above people?

Carlos Ponce

Look it up. There's a difference between what what the House originally voted on and what the Senate approved. Unless the same exact version is approved by both houses, it cannot be sent to the president.
What's happening? Pelosi is exercising her political muscle in using the Unanimous Consent.

Jim Forsythe

I ask you the difference, not what someone did or what others think about it, not why it could not be passed.
You stated that there was a difference, what was the difference or is it just talk.
If there was a difference. it could have been worked out and not waited until now to help the one's in need
Or is it just putting politics above people?
.

Carlos Ponce

"You stated that there was a difference, what was the difference or is it just talk."
DUH, Jim! If there was NO difference then the original House vote on the Bill would count as the final House vote and no additional vote is needed. Time for you to review, "I'm Just a Bill".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag
"Or is it just putting politics above people? "
Didn't you read my post?
" Pelosi is exercising her political muscle in using the Unanimous Consent. "
" Pelosi is exercising her political muscle in using the Unanimous Consent. "
" Pelosi is exercising her political muscle in using the Unanimous Consent. "
Now you can't miss it!
Pelosi is putting POLITICS above people.
"Everybody go on a 10 day vacation! Shhhh..... You few stay behind so we can pass these bills by unanimous consent without those pesky Republicans in the way. Read the bill and debate? Nonsense! I'm the speaker. You vote the WAY I TELL YOU!"
If a Republican Speaker did this, Jim Forsythe would be crying FOUL!
But the Speaker who gave you, "You need to pass the Bill before you know what's in it," is doing this. Only a FOOL would trust her. Come on Jim, use your head for something other than a hat rack!

Jim Forsythe

You keep trying not to answer, what was the difference in the January version and the one just passed.
If you can not know the difference just say so. You are trying to make out the difference was a huge thing , when it was not.
The bill was given to the Senate and they did not want to work on what would make it ok to all.
Was the difference that huge that they could not have worked it out to make it ok for all.
The bill passed the House in January, so it could have been worked on by the Senate to make it ok.
If it had been passed by all in January, the money could have been in hands of those in need, quicker.
But by refusing to work together, more time passed.
The people in need did not care if the bill was passed by just one vote, because they had a need that would not get better with time. By not voting Unanimous Consent changed what, not the outcome, just more time passing before help gets to those in need.
You keep trying to make this a Republican, Democrat thing, when it is a human thing, with people in need are waiting

Insulting me, does not change facts.


Carlos Ponce

"Insulting me, does not change facts." That's not an insult. It's analysis. I've given you the answer, repeated it several times and you still don't get it. Sheesh!

Jim Forsythe

You gave no answer as to what the difference in the January bill is verse's the one passed now. The big difference is time has passed that did not have to. The people in need did not care if the bill was passed by just one vote, because they had a need that would not get better with time. By not voting for Unanimous Consent, it changed what, not the outcome, just more time wasted. You may not think it is a insult, as you did not call me "nasty" but you did. "Only a FOOL would trust her. Come on Jim, use your head for something other than a hat rack!",'

Jim Forsythe

You gave no answer in the difference in the 2 bills, because the difference is just time wasted.

Carlos Ponce

What's the difference in the bills? ELEVEN Amendments. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2157/amendments

Craig Mason

How did Pelosi force a republican to vote no???? She must have magic powers....

Carlos Ponce

Pelosi changed the way they vote wanting to pass a bill without a quorum (most were on Memorial Day Holiday).

Jim Forsythe

The House had a quorum when they voted on H.R. 2157, using Unanimous Consent. A bill can pass both houses with only a single Senator and a single Representative present. The Senate and the House both have rules that assume a quorum is present until someone challenges that fact, in which case a count is actually taken to determine if there is a quorum present. Just a few of the bills that have passed, using Unanimous Consent. June 4, 2019 Senators easily passed a bipartisan bill that would amend immigration law to ban foreigners suspected of interfering in the U.S. electoral process. September 26, 2017 Senate passes 'right-to-try' bill by unanimous consent January 24, 2018 Senate Passes AVAA by Unanimous Consent June 28, 2018, the Senate approved ten individual hydropower bills by unanimous consent. August 2017 United States senators approve “Kari’s Law†legislation—requiring the ability to direct-dial 911 on multi-line telephone systems (MLTS) frequently used by hotels, offices and other enterprises—by unanimous consent,

Carlos Ponce

"in which case a count is actually taken to determine if there is a quorum present." It was challenged, there was NO quorum until the House returned from Memorial Day Holiday. See page 1 of today's paper.

Jim Forsythe

"Pelosi changed the way they vote wanting to pass a bill without a quorum (most were on Memorial Day Holiday)". is not true. She is the speaker of the House , as such, she takes from the floor what the members say they want. She did not introduce unanimous consent , but many member did over the course of many days because it is common practice to use it in times when funds are needed to help people. If you are against helping people, that's on you. This is not uncommon and not " Pelosi is exercising her political muscle in using the Unanimous Consent". As far as the 11 amendments they were not the reason the bill was not passed by the Senate in January. If the amendments would have been introduced in January, they would have also been approved in January. The amendments were not the reason that the bill did not pass in January. 05/23/2019 Passed Senate. As the bill was important to so many and the House started the process of passing H.R. 2157 the next day,05/24/2019 . Waiting to pass this bill, when it was going to pass,would help no one. The first call for unanimous consent happened in the House the first day and many times after, because waiting served no purpose but grand standing by a few. 05/24/2019-11:03am House Ms. Shalala asked unanimous consent (not Nancy, but a member of the House) to take from the Speaker's table the bill, H.R. 2157, and agree to the Senate amendment. Mr. Roy objected to the consideration of the Senate amendment. Mr. Roy accomplished what, except a delay in helping people?

Carlos Ponce

Pelosi was trying to pull a fast one. First she declares a 10 day Memorial Day Recess but holds back a few members so she can declare "unanimous consent" on pending legislation. A Republican learns of this and also holds back averting her "unanimous" declaration. "Unanimous Consents" are rare. Her timing on this and OTHER pending legislation is suspicious.

Jim Forsythe

No surprise attack, as the bill had just passed the Senate and the House was going to take action on the bill the next day. This was the first day after the bill passed the Senate. The 24th was the first day they could act on passing the bill. The 24th was on the schedule. House Floor Activities Legislative Day of May 23, 2019 1:41:52 P.M. The House adjourned pursuant to a previous special order. The next meeting is scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on May 24, 2019. The Senate was going to stay in session if the bill had not been passed by the Senate on the 23ed. "McConnell said that he'd cancel Memorial Day recess for the Senate if a bill isn't passed this week." By saying no to unanimous consent of the bill, just delayed getting help to those in need. Saying no was a good thing because of what Carlos? . Unanimous Consents are not rare. Unanimous Consent Agreements in the Senate Walter J. Oleszek Government and Finance Division "I would guess in the course of a typical week we probably enter into anywhere from 10 to 200 unanimous consent agreements." The same is true for the House. . Unanimous Consents are not rare. Unanimous Consent Agreements in the Senate Walter J. Oleszek Government and Finance Division "I would guess in the course of a typical week we probably enter into anywhere from 10 to 200 unanimous consent agreements." The same is true for the House.

Jim Forsythe

No surprise attack, as the bill had just passed the Senate and the House was going to take action on the bill the next day. This was the first day after the bill passed the Senate. The 24th was the first day they could act on passing the bill. …. The 24th was on the schedule. House Floor Activities Legislative Day of May 23, 2019 1:41:52 P.M. The House adjourned pursuant to a previous special order. The next meeting is scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on May 24, 2019. ,,,, The Senate was going to stay in session if the bill had not been passed by the Senate on the 23ed. "McConnell said that he'd cancel Memorial Day recess for the Senate if a bill isn't passed this week." By saying no to unanimous consent of the bill, just delayed getting help to those in need. Saying no was a good thing because of what Carlos? ,,,,, . Unanimous Consents are not rare. Unanimous Consent Agreements in the Senate Walter J. Oleszek Government and Finance Division "I would guess in the course of a typical week we probably enter into anywhere from 10 to 200 unanimous consent agreements." The same is true for the House. . …. Unanimous Consents are not rare. …. Unanimous Consent Agreements in the Senate Walter J. Oleszek Government and Finance Division "I would guess in the course of a typical week we probably enter into anywhere from 10 to 200 unanimous consent agreements." The same is true for the House.

Carlos Ponce

"I would guess in the course of a typical week we probably enter into anywhere from 10 to 200 unanimous consent agreements."

Carlos Ponce

The statement is hyperbole at best.

Carlos Ponce

"By saying no to unanimous consent of the bill, just delayed getting help to those in need. Saying no was a good thing because of what Carlos?" Inside information: Pelosi had more in mind to use Unanimous Consent than that ONE bill. "Unanimous Consents are not rare." RARE for appropriations, especially in the area of $19 Billion. Usually used in honorariums, small stuff like not reading the minutes for approval.

Carlos Ponce

"If enough House members would have stay till noon on the 24th, the bill would have passed." Then it's Nancy's fault. If the bill was so important, let the entire House vote THEN dismiss them. Why'd she dismiss them first? Looks like she had more on her agenda.

Carlos Ponce

"As far as the 11 amendments they were not the reason the bill was not passed by the Senate in January. If the amendments would have been introduced in January, they would have also been approved in January." Look at the dates on the amendments.

Jim Forsythe

If enough House members would have stay till noon on the 24th, the bill would have passed. With the Senate passing the bill and saying that they would have stayed until they had passed the bill including the holiday, the House was wrong in doing the same and staying, why? Just because a very few House members wanted to stall the passing of the bill does not make it what should have be done. If you are in favor of stalling as long as possible, that's on you. By not voting to pass the bill helped who? Not the ones in need. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...……………. Trying to make it sound that unanimous consent is rare is wrong. US Congress HR2157 2019-2020 Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30 2019 and for other purposes. ... Mr. Bishop (GA) asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill, H.R. 2157, and agree to the Senate amendment. …………………………………………………………………………………………….. January 25, 2019 The House today approved, by unanimous consent, a Continuing Resolution to reopen all federal agencies through February 15. ………………………………………………………

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.