It's done. 100:0 vote in the Senate.

Post #206,857 by Another Scott 5/10/05 9:51:32 PM Reply	It's done. 100:0 vote in the Senate. [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/10/AR2005051001145.html\|Washington Post]: WASHINGTON -- Congress approved an additional $82 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan and combating terrorism worldwide on Tuesday, boosting the cost of the global effort since 2001 to more than $300 billion. The Senate approved the measure by a 100-0 vote Tuesday. The House easily approved the measure last week. It now goes to President Bush for his signature, which is certain. [...] Democrats used the opportunity to criticize the Bush administration for its Iraq policies and for failing to go through the normal budget process to pay for the wars. Many also assailed Republicans for tacking on immigration provisions. One has to read between the lines on that one. 100:0. [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/10/AR2005051000158.html\|This] story has a little more about it: WASHINGTON -- New driver's license rules tucked in a military spending bill will create national identification cards for Americans and stick state governments with the bill, Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander said Tuesday. Alexander, R-Tenn., joined Democrats and state officials in railing against the White House-backed driver's license rules and other immigration measures before the Senate approved the $82 billion spending bill 100-0. The House approved it last week. [...] The House had included the rules and other the immigration provisions in its version of the bill paying for the U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate did not, but negotiators included them in the final bill. [...] What's wrong with this picture? In olden days the Senate leadership wouldn't allow unrelated amendments to be tacked onto appropriations bills. Also it used to be the case that the Senate and House conference committee that massaged the differences between bills would actually try to make a compromise between them. There was a reason for that. But not any more... What'll it be next? Maybe federal prison for flag burning? Yeah, that's the ticket. :-( Cheers, Scott.
Post #206,859 by tuberculosis 5/10/05 10:03:03 PM Reply	throw the bums out next election - simply vote for the challenger. "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
Post #206,963 by mmoffitt 5/11/05 4:09:52 PM Reply	I want NOTA on the ballot. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.
Post #206,876 by Simon_Jester 5/10/05 11:21:48 PM Reply	I am curious about this one.... what happens when a state DOESN'T implement the measures?
Post #206,882 by Another Scott 5/10/05 11:40:40 PM Reply	Let's see. My flippant answer is they lose their highway funding. That's the usual carrot/stick. But that's just a guess. Let's see what the [link\|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109Tirp0c\|HR 418 RFS] bill says: SEC. 205. GRANTS TO STATES. (a) In General- The Secretary may make grants to a State to assist the State in conforming to the minimum standards set forth in this title. (b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009 such sums as may be necessary to carry out this title. SEC. 206. AUTHORITY. (a) Participation of Secretary of Transportation and States- All authority to issue regulations, set standards, and issue grants under this title shall be carried out by the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the States. (b) Compliance With Standards- All authority to certify compliance with standards under this title shall be carried out by the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the States. (c) Extensions of Deadlines- The Secretary may grant to a State an extension of time to meet the requirements of section 202(a)(1) if the State provides adequate justification for noncompliance. It looks like the Secretary of Homeland Security and/or Transportation has discretion to supply or withhold funding to the states. In other words, it looks to me like a state might not get its highway funding.... :-/ I don't see anything else about what might happen to a state which didn't comply. I think we'll have to keep a careful eye on the Judicial Review restrictions and Waiver of Laws sections. :-( Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!