Cali66


Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 08:10 AM Topic: Don't cheat our soldiers-
Party Divisions of the House of Representatives (1789 to Present)* Congress (Years) # Reps. Pro-Administration Anti-Administration Other Vac. Del./Res. 1st (1789-1791) 65 37 28 0 0 0/0 2nd (1791-1793) 69 39 30 0 0 0/0 3rd (1793-1795) 106 51 54 0 0 1/0 etc.... I will post the whole House if you'd like, but it goes in the same order and is very similar to the Senate as I'm sure you would know or figure.

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 08:00 AM Topic: Don't cheat our soldiers-
until they get rid of the two party system, there will always. a debate. Plus congress runs the country and passes the bills. And who is Congress... What makes up Congress? Get rid of two party system? I am curious if you know the history of our two(?) party system? Yes sweetie I know the history, When our founding fathers had setup the goverment most of America's founding fathers were opposed to political parties, and wanted none of them in the U.S. Washinton was a independent (not affiliated with a party). The Ferderalist was the first party setup. Then to oppose it later on was the Democratic-Republican Party, to keep check and balance to make sure one not be stronger then the other. The Republican Party replaced the Whig party later on. So now we have the two parties along with a third allowed here and there. Which we do need a third. as a Indepentent I am disappointed in both parties. Actually you are incorrect.... Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present Note: Statistics listed below reflect party division immediately following the election. The actual number of senators representing a particular party often changes during a congress, due to the death or resignation of a senator, or as a consequence of a member changing parties. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1st Congress (1789-1791) Majority Party: Pro-Administration (18 seats) Minority Party: Anti-Administration (8 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 26 Note: Organized political parties developed in the U.S. in the 1790s, but political factions--from which organized parties evolved--began to appear almost immediately after establishment of the federal government. Those who supported the Washington administration were referred to as "pro-administration" and would eventually form the Federalist party, while those in opposition joined the emerging (Jeffersonian) Republican party. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2nd Congress (1791-1793) Majority Party: Pro-Administration (16 seats) Minority Party: Anti-Administration (13 seats) Other Parties: 0 Vacant: 1 Total Seats: 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3rd Congress (1793-1795) Majority Party: Pro-Administration (16 seats) Minority Party: Anti-Administration (14 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4th Congress (1795-1797) Majority Party: Federalist (21 seats) Minority Party: Republican (11 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 32 Note: The Republican party that emerged in the 1790s is also referred to as the Jeffersonian-Republican party or the Democratic-Republican party, and should not be confused with the modern (GOP) Republican party established in the 1850s. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5th Congress (1797-1799) Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats) Minority Party: Republican (10 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 32 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6th Congress (1799-1801) Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats) Minority Party: Republican (10 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 32 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7th Congress (1801-1803) Majority Party: Republican (17 seats) Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats) Other Parties: 0 Vacant: 2 Total Seats: 34 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8th Congress (1803-1805) Majority Party: Republican (25 seats) Minority Party: Federalist (9 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 34 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9th Congress (1805-1807) Majority Party: Republican (27 seats) Minority Party: Federalist (7 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 34 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10th Congress (1807-1809) Majority Party: Republican (28 seats) Minority Party: Federalist (6 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 34 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11th Congress (1809-1811) Majority Party: Republican (27 seats) Minority Party: Federalist (7 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 34 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12th Congress (1811-1813) Majority Party: Republican (30 seats) Minority Party: Federalist (6 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 36 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13th Congress (1813-1815) Majority Party: Republican (28 seats) Minority Party: Federalist (8 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 36 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14th Congress (1815-1817) Majority Party: Republican (26 seats) Minority Party: Federalist (12 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 38 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15th Congress (1817-1819) Majority Party: Republican (30 seats) Minority Party: Federalist (12 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 42 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16th Congress (1819-1821) Majority Party: Republican (37 seats) Minority Party: Federalist (9 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 46 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17th Congress (1821-1823) Majority Party: Republican (44 seats) Minority Party: Federalist (4 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 48 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18th Congress (1823-1825) Majority Party: Jackson & Crawford Republicans (31) Minority Party: Adams-Clay Republicans & Federalists (17) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 48 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19th Congress (1825-1827) Majority Party: Jacksonian (26 seats) Minority Party: Adams (22 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 48 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20th Congress (1827-1829) Majority Party: Jacksonian (27 seats) Minority Party: Adams (21 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 48 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21st Congress (1829-1831) Majority Party: Jacksonian (25 seats) Minority Party: Anti-Jackson (23 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 48 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22nd Congress (1831-1833) Majority Party: Jacksonian (24 seats) Minority Party: Anti-Jackson (22 seats) Other Parties: 2 National Republican Total Seats: 48 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23rd Congress (1833-1835) Majority Party: Anti-Jackson (26 seats) Minority Party: Jacksonian (20 seats) Other Parties: 2 National Republican Total Seats: 48 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24th Congress (1835-1837) Majority Party: Jacksonian (26 seats) Minority Party: Anti-Jackson (24 seats) Other Parties: 2 National Republican Total Seats: 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25th Congress (1837-1839) Majority Party: Democrat (35 seats) Minority Party: Whig (17 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26th Congress (1839-1841) Majority Party: Democrat (30 seats) Minority Party: Whig (22 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27th Congress (1841-1843) Majority Party: Whig (29 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (22 seats) Other Parties: 0 Vacant: 1 Total Seats: 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28th Congress (1843-1845) Majority Party: Whig (29 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (23 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29th Congress (1845-1847) Majority Party: Democrat (34 seats) Minority Party: Whig (22 seats) Other Parties: 0 Vacant: 2 Total Seats: 58 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30th Congress (1847-1849) Majority Party: Democrat (38 seats) Minority Party: Whig (21 seats) Other Parties: 1 Independent Democrat Total Seats: 60 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31st Congress (1849-1851) Majority Party: Democrat (35 seats) Minority Party: Whig (25 seats) Other Parties: 2 Free Soiler Total Seats: 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32nd Congress (1851-1853) Majority Party: Democrat (36 seats) Minority Party: Whig (23 seats) Other Parties: 3 Free Soiler Total Seats: 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33rd Congress (1853-1855) Majority Party: Democrat (38 seats) Minority Party: Whig (22 seats) Other Parties: 2 Free Soiler Total Seats: 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34th Congress (1855-1857) Majority Party: Democrat (39 seats) Minority Party: Opposition (22 seats) Other Parties: 1 American Party Total Seats: 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35th Congress (1857-1859) Majority Party: Democrat (41 seats) Minority Party: Republican (20 seats) Other Parties: 5 American Party Total Seats: 66 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36th Congress (1859-1861) Majority Party: Democrat (38 seats) Minority Party: Republican (26 seats) Other Parties: 2 American Party Total Seats: 66 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37th Congress (1861-1863) Majority Party: Republican (31 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (15 seats) Other Parties: 3 Unionist Vacant: 1 Total Seats: 50 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38th Congress (1863-1865) Majority Party: Republican (33 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (10 seats) Other Parties: 5 Unconditional Unionist; 4 Unionist Total Seats: 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39th Congress (1865-1867) Majority Party: Republican (39 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (11 seats) Other Parties: 3 Unconditional Unionist; 1 Unionist Total Seats: 54 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40th Congress (1867-1869) Majority Party: Republican (57 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (9 seats) Other Parties: 0 Vacant: 2 Total Seats: 68 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41st Congress (1869-1871) Majority Party: Republican (62 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (12 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 74 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42nd Congress (1871-1873) Majority Party: Republican (56 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (17 seats) Other Parties: 1 Liberal Republican Total Seats: 74 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43rd Congress (1873-1875) Majority Party: Republican (47 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (19 seats) Other Parties: 7 Liberal Republican Vacant: 1 Total Seats: 74 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44th Congress (1875-1877) Majority Party: Republican (46 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (28 seats) Other Parties: 1 Independent Republican Vacant: 1 Total Seats: 76 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45th Congress (1877-1879) Majority Party: Republican (40 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (35 seats) Other Parties: 1 Independent Total Seats: 76 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46th Congress (1879-1881) Majority Party: Democrat (42 seats) Minority Party: Republican (33 seats) Other Parties: 1 Independent Total Seats: 76 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47th Congress (1881-1883) Majority Party: Republican (37 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (37 seats) Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Readjuster Total Seats: 76 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48th Congress (1883-1885) Majority Party: Republican (38 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (36 seats) Other Parties: 2 Readjuster Total Seats: 76 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49th Congress (1885-1887) Majority Party: Republican (42 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (34 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 76 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50th Congress (1887-1889) Majority Party: Republican (39 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (37 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 76 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51st Congress (1889-1891) Majority Party: Republican (51 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (37 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 88 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52nd Congress (1891-1893) Majority Party: Republican (47 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (39 seats) Other Parties: 2 Populist Total Seats: 88 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53rd Congress (1893-1895) Majority Party: Democrat (44 seats) Minority Party: Republican (40 seats) Other Parties: 3 Populist; 1 Silver Total Seats: 88 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54th Congress (1895-1897) Majority Party: Republican (44 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (40 seats) Other Parties: 4 Populist; 2 Silver Total Seats: 90 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55th Congress (1897-1899) Majority Party: Republican (44 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (34 seats) Other Parties: 5 Populist; 5 Silver Republican; 2 Silver Total Seats: 90 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56th Congress (1899-1901) Majority Party: Republican (53 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (26 seats) Other Parties: 5 Populist; 3 Silver Republican; 2 Silver Vacant: 1 Total Seats: 90 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57th Congress (1901-1903) Majority Party: Republican (56 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (32 seats) Other Parties: 2 Populist Total Seats: 90 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58th Congress (1903-1905) Majority Party: Republican (57 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (33 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 90 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59th Congress (1905-1907) Majority Party: Republican (58 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (32 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 90 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60th Congress (1907-1909) Majority Party: Republican (61 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (31 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 92 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61st Congress (1909-1911) Majority Party: Republican (60 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (32 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 92 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62nd Congress (1911-1913) Majority Party: Republican (52 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63rd Congress (1913-1915) Majority Party: Democrat (51 seats) Minority Party: Republican (44 seats) Other Parties: 1 Progressive Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64th Congress (1915-1917) Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats) Minority Party: Republican (40 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65th Congress (1917-1919) Majority Party: Democrat (54 seats) Minority Party: Republican (42 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66th Congress (1919-1921) Majority Party: Republican (49 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67th Congress (1921-1923) Majority Party: Republican (59 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (37 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68th Congress (1923-1925) Majority Party: Republican (53 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (42 seats) Other Parties: 1 Farmer-Labor Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 69th Congress (1925-1927) Majority Party: Republican (54 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (41 seats) Other Parties: 1 Farmer-Labor Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70th Congress (1927-1929) Majority Party: Republican (48 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats) Other Parties: 1 Farmer-Labor Vacant: 1 Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 71st Congress (1929-1931) Majority Party: Republican (56 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (39 seats) Other Parties: 1 Farmer-Labor Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 72nd Congress (1931-1933) Majority Party: Republican (48 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats) Other Parties: 1 Farmer-Labor Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73rd Congress (1933-1935) Majority Party: Democrat (59 seats) Minority Party: Republican (36 seats) Other Parties: 1 Farmer-Labor Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74th Congress (1935-1937) Majority Party: Democrat (69 seats) Minority Party: Republican (25 seats) Other Parties: 1 Farmer-Labor; 1 Progressive Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75th Congress (1937-1939) Majority Party: Democrat (76 seats) Minority Party: Republican (16 seats) Other Parties: 2 Farmer-Labor; 1 Progressive; 1 Independent Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76th Congress (1939-1941) Majority Party: Democrat (69 seats) Minority Party: Republican (23 seats) Other Parties: 2 Farmer-Labor; 1 Progressive; 1 Independent Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 77th Congress (1941-1943) Majority Party: Democrat (66 seats) Minority Party: Republican (28 seats) Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Progressive Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78th Congress (1943-1945) Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats) Minority Party: Republican (38 seats) Other Parties: 1 Progressive Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 79th Congress (1945-1947) Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats) Minority Party: Republican (38 seats) Other Parties: 1 Progressive Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80th Congress (1947-1949) Majority Party: Republican (51 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 81st Congress (1949-1951) Majority Party: Democrat (54 seats) Minority Party: Republican (42 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 82nd Congress (1951-1953) Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats) Minority Party: Republican (47 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83rd Congress (1953-1955) Majority Party: Republican (48 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats) Other Parties: 1 Independent Total Seats: 96 Note: See Senate Membership Changes During the 83rd Congress ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 84th Congress (1955-1957) Majority Party: Democrat (48 seats) Minority Party: Republican (47 seats) Other Parties: 1 Independent Total Seats: 96 Note: Strom Thurmond (SC) was an Independent Democrat during this Congress until his resignation on April 4, 1956. In November of that year he was elected as a Democrat to fill the vacancy created by his resignation. The Independent member listed above was Wayne Morse (OR), who changed from an Independent to a Democrat on February 17, 1955. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85th Congress (1957-1959) Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats) Minority Party: Republican (47 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 86th Congress (1959-1961) Majority Party: Democrat (65 seats) Minority Party: Republican (35 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87th Congress (1961-1963) Majority Party: Democrat (64 seats) Minority Party: Republican (36 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 88th Congress (1963-1965) Majority Party: Democrat (66 seats) Minority Party: Republican (34 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 89th Congress (1965-1967) Majority Party: Democrat (68 seats) Minority Party: Republican (32 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 90th Congress (1967-1969) Majority Party: Democrat (64 seats) Minority Party: Republican (36 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 91st Congress (1969-1971) Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats) Minority Party: Republican (43 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92nd Congress (1971-1973) Majority Party: Democrat (54 seats) Minority Party: Republican (44 seats) Other Parties: 1 Conservative; 1 Independent Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93rd Congress (1973-1975) Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats) Minority Party: Republican (42 seats) Other Parties: 1 Conservative; 1 Independent Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 94th Congress (1975-1977) Majority Party: Democrat (60 seats) Minority Party: Republican (38 seats) Other Parties: 1 Conservative; 1 Independent Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95th Congress (1977-1979) Majority Party: Democrat (61 seats) Minority Party: Republican (38 seats) Other Parties: 1 Independent Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 96th Congress (1979-1981) Majority Party: Democrat (58 seats) Minority Party: Republican (41 seats) Other Parties: 1 Independent Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 97th Congress (1981-1983) Majority Party: Republican (53 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats) Other Parties: 1 Independent Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 98th Congress (1983-1985) Majority Party: Republican (54 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99th Congress (1985-1987) Majority Party: Republican (53 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100th Congress (1987-1989) Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats) Minority Party: Republican (45 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101st Congress (1989-1991) Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats) Minority Party: Republican (45 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 102nd Congress (1991-1993) Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats) Minority Party: Republican (44 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 103rd Congress (1993-1995) Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats) Minority Party: Republican (43 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 Note: Party division changed to 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans after the June 5, 1993 election of Kay B. Hutchison (R-TX). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 104th Congress (1995-1997) Majority Party: Republican (52 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 Note: Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 105th Congress (1997-1999) Majority Party: Republican (55 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 106th Congress (1999-2001) Majority Party: Republican (55 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 Note: As the 106th Congress began, the division was 55 Republican seats and 45 Democratic seats, but this changed to 54-45 on July 13, 1999 when Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire switched from the Republican party to Independent status. On November 1, 1999, Smith announced his return to the Republican party, making the division once more 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. Following the death of Senator Paul Coverdell (R-GA) on July 18, 2000, the balance shifted again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when the governor appointed Zell Miller, a Democrat, to fill the vacancy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 107th Congress (2001-2003) Majority Party (Jan 3-20, 2001): Democrat (50 seats) Minority Party: Republican (50 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ________ Majority Party (Jan 20-June 6, 2001): Republican (50 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (50 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 ______ Majority Party (June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --): Democrat (50 seats) Minority Party: Republican (49 seats) Other Parties: 1 Total Seats: 100 _____ Majority Party (November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats) Other Parties: 2 Total Seats: 100 Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 108th Congress (2003-2005) Majority Party: Republican (51 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats) Other Parties: Independent (1 seat) Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 109th Congress (2005-2007) Majority Party: Republican (55 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats) Other Parties: Independent (1 seat) Total Seats: 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110th Congress (2007-2009) Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats) Minority Party: Republican (49 seats) Other Parties: 1Independent; 1 Independent Democrat Total Seats: 100 Note: Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an Independent, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected as an Independent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 07:24 AM Topic: Was there anybody more qualified? Edited by Cali66 on Fri 09/12/08 07:33 AM
Palin - Mayor of itty bitty town. There are alot of those itty bitty towns. Executive experience is just that - EXPERIENCE. Most of America is NOT Chicago & it's still more experience than OBAMA has. By all of your definitions OBAMA is the one who should not be running. Thanks for your input...no matter how backward it is. Why are you so rude when someone has a different opinion from you? Does it bother you when someone is a thinker and not a sheeple? good question. two of my threads were pulled for review because haters flagged it and hijacked it. LOL On Obama... he votes "present" when sent to Congress to vote "yes" or "no". we pay him for that? he cashes his paycheck, but never earns it. I will vote "present" for Obama, just like he does. Where is the real contempt? Disrespect for authority and accountability for action comes in the vote. NObama 2008 State Senator for a few years and U.S. Senator for a few years. Sounds good to me. Community Service is a plus too. McCain didn't know the difference between **es(Shias) and Sunni's. He thought Al-Quida was going to Iran for training. What a joke. Liebermann had to correct him in public. He didn't even know the reason Russia was attacking Georgia. Doesn't sound good to me. He doesn't what's going on the world and selects a candidate that knows even less. Last year when he didn't like one of Hillary's proposals, he said that you can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig. What a joke. But Winx!!!!! nobama did not accomplish anything in all that time exept write two books. He doesn't vote on bills, he only logs in as present. It is in the voting record. he spo8uts a lot but doesn't get it. Do something. Mc cain bashed on the whole leadership of this country about screwing around in Iraq and opened eyes to the need. He made credible noise and no one could shut him up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He pushed hard and pointed the way for Bush to listen to Gen. Patreas. That move made the sunnis capitulate and get on board. There was no awakening, nor an enlightenment in Iraqi minds, only the realization that all were going to go down with a surgeg of force from the US military to get the damn mess settled down. They know that they have a better chance playing ball with us than continuing to hamper us in cleaning up the anarchy left in the vacuum of NO SADAAM!!!!!!!!!!!! Maliki was the mayor of Baghdad under sadaam and knows the ropes. Playing ball works. Mc cain forced that. That is good for America. Is this the 'present' you're speaking of that Obama does in the Senate. Facts 8 years being a senator, elected into the Senate in 2004- How many years total is that? 12 years? ok lets look at Obamas 'present' only .... * 108. S.114 : A bill to authorize resources for a grant program for local educational agencies to create innovation districts. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] * IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES January 4, 2007 Mr. OBAMA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions A BILL To authorize resources for a grant program for local educational agencies to create innovation districts. 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 `Innovation Districts for School Improvement Act'. 110. S.116 : A bill to authorize resources to provide students with opportunities for summer learning through summer learning grants. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (3) Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 111. S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (15) Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs * 127. S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] * 427. S.433 : A bill to state United States policy for Iraq, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/30/2007) Cosponsors (3) Committees: Senate Foreign Relations IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES January 30, 2007 Mr. OBAMA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To state United States policy for Iraq, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, * 447. S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/31/2007) Cosponsors (20) Committees: Senate Judiciary Senate Reports: 110-191 Latest Major Action: 10/4/2007 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 411. ** Obama Calls on the Bush Administration to Guarantee Taxpayers Do Not Pay Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac CEO Severance Packages Monday, September 8, 2008 Printable FormatFor Immediate Release: Contact: Michael Ortiz WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Barack Obama today sent the following letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart, calling on them to address news reports that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac CEOs will receive millions of dollars in severance packages even as they are removed from their posts. When Congress originally approved the authority for the Treasury Department to step in and rescue these companies this summer, it explicitly included a provision that gave the new regulator the authority to block golden parachute payments to CEOs. As the Bush Administration now takes unprecedented steps to rescue these companies with taxpayer dollars, it would be highly inappropriate and a violation of the public trust to allow windfall CEO severance pay packages. In the letter, Senator Obama calls on the Administration to provide him with the steps being taken to ensure that these companies fulfill their important missions without wasting taxpayer dollars or rewarding poor leadership. The text of the letter is below: Dear Secretary Paulson and Director Lockhart, News reports indicate that the chief executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will stand to reap millions of dollars in severance payments when they are removed from their posts. Under no circumstances should the executives of these institutions earn a windfall at a time when the U.S. Treasury has taken unprecedented steps to rescue these companies with taxpayer resources. I urge you immediately to clarify that the agreement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac voids any such inappropriate windfall payments to outgoing CEOs and senior management. When Congress granted the Department of the Treasury the authority to step in and rescue Fannie and Freddie, we explicitly included a provision that gave the new regulator the authority to block "any" payments made to CEOs that were "contingent on the termination" of their affiliation with the organization. It would be a gross violation of the public trust to fail to use this authority now, while American taxpayers and American homeowners, already struggling in a weak economy, are being asked to accept an historic intervention to rescue these institutions. I recognize that intervention is necessary to maintain liquidity for the housing market so that homeowners can continue to get affordable mortgages and homes can be bought and sold in neighborhoods across the country. Yet one of the central requirements that I have consistently set in evaluating any intervention under this new legislation is that such action protect taxpayers and not bail out senior management from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Multi-million dollar severance payments for the executives who helped steer these institutions into the current crisis situation would violate the spirit of the authority granted by Congress to the Treasury Department and would violate the public's trust. I understand that details of the agreement are still being worked out. Please let me know right away what steps are being taken to ensure that the agreement is responsible and that Fannie and Freddie can continue to fulfill their important missions without wasting taxpayer dollars or rewarding poor leadership. The American people are watching and have put their trust in us to look out for their interests. Sincerely, Barack Obama United States Senator * Now I understand what you mean how he says 'present' and does nothing else.

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 06:33 AM Topic: Don't cheat our soldiers-
Hey with all this talk of troops defending our "free speech' any one ever recall any troop being called apon to do that? Most of the posts I have seen are " I am gona bust ya in the chops if you keep useing your free speech rights" who said chops

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 06:31 AM Topic: Don't cheat our soldiers-
until they get rid of the two party system, there will always. a debate. Plus congress runs the country and passes the bills. And who is Congress... What makes up Congress? Get rid of two party system? I am curious if you know the history of our two(?) party system?

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 05:56 AM Topic: Don't cheat our soldiers-
It doesn't surprise me. Someone is doing something to support the troops, but there will still be people complaining about it. Apparently I put up the wrong 'side' for some people. But I am not taking sides, I am neither a registered dem or repub. I have made a decision based on educating myself and mounds of research. So, with that said- I will not conform to others needs through- strong arm tactics, I'm a free thinker.

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 05:53 AM Topic: Pentagon needs to come clean
Pfft. It's sad that Sen. Biden is using the deaths of soldiers to make himself look like a saint and collect votes. Same goes for any other politician who does that. This is why I hate partisan politics. Politicians will find any excuse to puff themselves up and make others look like demons. Do you see the date on that? That was over a year ago. Do I need to post up things from 2 years ago? Trust me he has been in the Senate for over 30 years. So I got 30 years of this to choose from.

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 05:50 AM Topic: Don't cheat our soldiers-
It is funny I alot of people have alot to say about our troops and the war, but yet they have never even served and alot of them don't vote. So, people can't say anything about the war if they haven't served? I served (boy was I a dumb kid)

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 05:49 AM Topic: Don't cheat our soldiers-
It doesn't surprise me. Someone is doing something to support the troops, but there will still be people complaining about it. Apparently I put up the wrong 'side' for some people. But I am not taking sides, I am neither a registered dem or repub. I have made a decision based on educating myself and mounds of research. So, with that said- I will not conform to others needs through- strong arm tactics, I'm a free thinker.

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 05:44 AM Topic: Don't cheat our soldiers-
It is funny I alot of people have alot to say about our troops and the war, but yet they have never even served and alot of them don't vote. You are making assumptions now aren't you?

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 05:42 AM Topic: Don't cheat our soldiers- Edited by Cali66 on Fri 09/12/08 05:44 AM
This is current presidential news.. What is going on now. In case you didn't notice the post. Biden is fighting for the troops. You deny this? You're upset because Biden fights for our Troops? I don't follow your comment. I am not debating Clinton he is not President. I am not debating this, I am putting up factual information, you can read it and choose to be angry(?) or not, isn't going to change the facts.

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 05:32 AM Topic: Don't cheat our soldiers-
BIDEN to PRESIDENT: 'Don't Cheat Our Soldiers Out of Their Education Benefits' October 19, 2007 BIDEN: ‘They kept their promise to us and we must keep our promises to them.' BIDEN: ‘There is no excuse for playing games with their hard-earned benefits.' Washington, DC - Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) sent a letter to President Bush urging him to conduct a comprehensive review of the policies surrounding deployment times for our National Reserve and Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Recent reports have indicated that National Reserve and Guard units have been denied education benefits because they were one or two days short of their service requirements. Responding to these reports, Sen. Biden called on the President to provide the full benefits due to soldiers who have honorably served this nation. The full text of the letter follows. October 18, 2007 The President The White House Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: I urge you to conduct a thorough review of the policies and practices surrounding deployment times for our Reserve and Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have heard anecdotal accounts and seen press reports that many Reserve and Guard units are sent home from Iraq and Afghanistan just as their service times would make them eligible for education benefits. If this was done intentionally, it is outrageous. If it was accidental, it must be fixed. Our citizen-soldiers take on service to this nation while also holding down civilian jobs. There is no excuse for playing games with their hard-earned benefits. Most recently, units based in Iowa and Minnesota have confronted this problem. According to press reports, even though all served the required 20 consecutive months on active duty, large portions of these units were a day or two short of the 730 days requirement due to their specific deployment orders. The Iowa National Guard's 133rd Battalion spent almost two years in Iraq - making them the longest serving Guard unit in the United States since World War II. The members of the "Ironman Battalion" served honorably during their time in Iraq, but over 500 of them were told they are not eligible for full G.I. Bill educational benefits because their orders were for 725 to 729 days, just short of the 730 days required. The 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry Division based in Minnesota was deployed in Iraq 30 days longer than any other unit serving in Iraq at the time. Unfortunately, over half of the members of the "Red Bulls" were told they did not qualify for G.I. Bill educational benefits because their orders only had them on duty for 729 days - one day shy of the minimum needed to qualify for the benefits. These soldiers - fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters - are heroes by any standard and should be treated as nothing less. Instead, if these reports are true, they are being cheated of benefits by either a disturbing lack of attention to detail by those handling the deployment orders or by an even more disturbing effort to intentionally disqualify them. In addition, they must now individually struggle with the bureaucracy at the Army Board of Corrections of Military Records, as the Board insists on reviewing each case individually rather than the unit as a whole. This is particularly problematic for those soldiers in school who may not be able to make use of their benefits if the claims process takes too long. When these men and women stepped-up to serve our nation in its time of need, they expected to be treated fairly. They kept their promise to us and we must keep our promises to them. I strongly urge you to expedite the processing of their claims, and to rectify this situation with the utmost haste. Respectfully, Joseph R. Biden, Jr. United States Senator Thank you Mr Biden for supporting the troops in the real world. We have grown so weary of all this right wing" support the troops" garbage and then see the republicans slash their benefits and subject them to stop loss deployments even after there time in the military is up. I Biden- who can say anything bad about him? That is really something when someone has a negative word against someone obviously working hard for us. Who else does that?

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 05:25 AM Topic: Pentagon needs to come clean
SEN. BIDEN Again Demands Investigation into MRAP Delay; 'Pentagon Needs to Come Clean' July 16, 2007 BIDEN to Introduce Amendment to Defense Authorization Bill to Put Congress on Record that We Will Provide Every Dollar and Every Authority Needed to Build and Deploy these Life-Saving Vehicles Washington, DC - Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) issued the following statement today following news reports of additional delays in getting Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles into Iraq. Road-side bombs are responsible for 70 percent of casualties in Iraq - they are by far the most lethal weapon used against our troops. Mine Resistant Vehicles can reduce those casualties by two-thirds. Despite its proven success in protecting our troops, repeated requests from troops on the ground in Iraq for the MRAP were ignored by the Pentagon. "Today's news that our troops in the field pleaded for Mine Resistant Vehicles as far back as 2003 is deeply disturbing. Those on the frontlines knew they needed better protection against the road-side bombs that were killing their comrades; they knew we had the technology - but their requests were repeatedly ignored by the Pentagon and by a President who has claimed all along that he listens first and foremost to those in the field. "I asked Secretary Gates two months ago to investigate the bureaucratic delays in getting Mine Resistant Vehicles into the field- I still have not received a response from him. I asked Secretary Gates then and I ask it again now: ‘How is it possible that with our nation at war, with more than 130,000 Americans in danger, with roadside bombs destroying a growing number of lives and limbs, we were so slow to act to protect our troops?' We need to find out now what happened, who's responsible and fix it. This isn't about accountability for the past - it's about saving lives and limbs now. Because it's happening again, with protection against explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) or shaped charges that hit our vehicles from the side. Once again, protection against this threat has been tested, but the military is dragging its feet getting this technology to Iraq. "As part of the Defense Authorization bill this week, I will introduce an amendment making it clear Congress will provide every dollar and every authority needed to build vehicles resistant to roadside bombs and shaped charges. As long as we have a single soldier in Iraq, we must do whatever it takes to provide them the best protection possible. This must be a national priority. "This excuse about ‘we didn't expect the war to last this long so we didn't build MRAPS' is outrageous. Before the war started, I urged the President repeatedly to level with the American people about the cost, the risk and the likely duration of this war. Instead, he tried to hide the facts so as not to jeopardize support for the war. Neither the President nor some of the leaders in the Pentagon acted like we were a nation at war. Instead of prioritizing those in danger in the field, they worried about long-term budgets and Secretary Rumsfeld's theories about making the military lighter and more agile. The Pentagon needs to come clean about these repeated delays and guarantee every soldier and their family it will do whatever necessary to protect them every single day they are there." Sen. Biden has been leading the effort to get more Mine Resistant Vehicles on the ground in Iraq as soon as possible. His amendment to the Senate's FY 2007 Supplemental Appropriations Bill (March 28, 2007) accelerated MRAP funding by adding $1.5 billion to the emergency spending bill. As a result, the military can deploy 2,500 more MRAPs six-months sooner than planned. In addition, Sen. Biden has repeatedly called on the Administration to make the construction and deployment of MRAP's and EFP protection a national priority and to investigate the military's failure to field this technology sooner.

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 05:19 AM Topic: Iraq War on Senate Floor today(07)
BIDEN Decries Republican Refusal to Vote on Iraq War on Senate Floor Today July 18, 2007 BIDEN: "The time now is to stop digging a hole, redeploy our forces, save American lives and begin to push a political settlement. BIDEN: "Al Qaeda in Iraq is a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. It did not exist in Iraq, prior to our invasion." Washington, DC - Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) delivered the following remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate today: Mr. Biden: Madam President, I share the frustration of my friend from Pennsylvania and I'm sure—I remember when my colleague, Senator Byrd—whom I still call the leader—was leader when I got here after Senator Mansfield, that, the way in which—how things have changed in many ways. One of the things that's changed, Madam President, is what we saw take place today. Here, the single most critical issue facing the United States of America today, the carnage that's taking place in Iraq, the fact that our blood and treasure is being spilled with no apparent end in sight, the notion that we would have to resort to a filibuster to stop a vote of a majority—clear majority—of United States senators who believe that there is an urgent need to change course in Iraq is not only dismaying, but the consequence of it, I believe, is to kick the can down the road another two to three months. In the meantime, many Americans are going to be injured and killed who I believe are not—that could be avoided. You know, ever since the Democrats took back the congress, we've been working to build pressure on the administration and, quite frankly, on a number of our Republican colleagues to change course in Iraq. And because I don't believe there are a dozen Republican senators who agree with the president's present position. I don't believe there's a dozen Republican senators who believe that the results are going to be fundamentally different on September the 5th than they are today, although I respect the fact that they've concluded they want to wait to give the president every opportunity to demonstrate that his plan can work. But here's the problem, Madam President, with all due respect. The problem is that we're faced with two false choices here in the Congress. One is, the one put forward by the administration and sustained by a minority of votes—overwhelmingly Republican—that says that we should continue to do what we're doing and essentially hand off the problem to the next president. I don't know anybody here who believes that through escalating this conflict, adding American forces, there's any reasonable prospect that that will bring about the only thing that will end this war in our interest, that is a political settlement among—among the Iraqis. And then there's a number of Democrats who have a view out of frustration that we must begin to get out of there—get out and hope for the best. And their premise, some of them, as well, that, look, there isn't any reasonable prospect of us being able to do this militarily—and they're right—and the hope is that somehow if we get out, the Iraqis, the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shias will have a bit of an epiphany, as we Catholics would say, that they'll get together and say, oh my goodness, America and leaving and we better get together and settle our differences here or things are going to completely implode. Well the fundamental strategic flaw in all of that thinking, Madam President, in my humble opinion and I know I'm like a broken record, I've been saying this for over three years and I've laid out a concrete plan over a year ago, the fundamental flaw in this is there's no possibility in the lifetime of any member of this Senate for there to be a coherent central government in Baghdad that has the ability to gain the faith and trust of the people of Iraq and the ability to govern that country. It will not happen. Mark my words. There is no possibility of that happening. Never [in] my research have I found, ever, has there been a situation where there's been a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian violence, a self-sustaining civil war-exactly what we have now in Iraq—that it has ended in any other than one of four ways. A major power goes in and occupies the country for a generation or more. Not an option available to us, nor is it in our DNA to do that. We are not—we are not the British Empire, we are not the Ottoman Empire, we are not the Persian Empire. Nor do we want to be. The second option is, install a dictator. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony for the United States of America to install a dictator? Third option, pick a side. Wage in on one side of the sectarian violence, wipe out the other side. Not a good option. A, it would be immoral, B, it would take a couple of years and three, it would ignite a Sunni-Shia revolution from the Mediterranean to the Himalayas. And there has been a fourth way where it's ended. And that is by establishing a federal system within the country, separating the parties, giving them control over the fabric of their daily lives, their own security forces in their own neighborhoods, their own laws relating to religion, education, marriage, divorce, property, jobs—a federal system. And coincidentally, that's exactly what the Iraqi Constitution calls for in Article One. It says we are a decentralized federal system. So, absent a political settlement, there is no way out. I'll make a prediction that I shouldn't make because I've been here, around here, long enough to know that everything you say on this floor you are reminded of if you turn out to be wrong. If you are right you're never reminded of it—if you turn out to be wrong, you are reminded whether it is six months, six years or 12 years later. I honestly believe, absent a radical change in course resulting in the federal system existing within Iraq, the only option the next president of the United States is going to have is going to be a reenactment of the scene of Saigon with helicopters lifting people off the roofs of the embassy in the green zone. That's how it's going to end—in disaster. I not only don't want my son who is a captain in the United States National Guard going to Iraq, I don't want my grandson going or my granddaughter. And how we leave Iraq, what shape we leave it in, what prospect for a political settlement exists will determine whether my grandson goes back 15 years from now. So, Madam President, all we did today was take what was originally called the Biden-Hagel etcetera resolution that we introduced in January, then the Biden-Levin resolution, then the Reed, or Levin-Reed-Biden, et al, and now the Levin-Reed amendment—they all do the same thing. There is not a dime's worth of difference. And what they all said was this: Mr. President, the first thing you do when you are in a hole is stop digging. Stop digging us deeper into this disaster. Cease and desist from placing our troops in the midst of a civil war. We're in the midst of a civil war. The quote "success" we're having in Anbar province, what is it doing? It's making the Shia conclude that we are arming and engaging with the Sunnis and the former Ba'athists, making it harder for us to get the Shia to agree to action on the oil law which would be the thing to get the Sunnis to buy into a united Iraq. We're in the midst of a civil war. And the whole thesis of the idea we came forward with as early as January and we voted on again today is to say get out of that civil war. Use American forces for only three express purposes: One, one, train the Iraqi army; two, deny al Qaeda occupation of large swaths of territory, particularly in Anbar province; and three, protect our diplomats there. Ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues in the Senate, last week we heard President Bush give a progress report on Iraq and it reminded me of a guy who jumps off 100-story building and he is passing the 50th floor, somebody yells out "how's it going," and he yells back "so far, so good." That's the summary of the president's report except that it's not even going well so far. And the outcome is absolutely certain—continued disaster. Also last week, Bob Woodward revealed that back if in November, the CIA Director Michael Hayden made the very point I've been making for two years in a private meeting with Iraqi Study Group. He said quote "the inability of the central government to govern is irreversible," end of quote. There is quote "no milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around," end of quote. Our director of the CIA and all of intelligence came along and—excuse me of the CIA then went on to say "we have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government that cannot function," end of quote. What more do we need? I ask my colleagues what more do you need? Our own intelligence community has been saying since last November that the inability of the central government to govern is irreversible. Irreversible! Ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, nothing has happened since General Hayden made his remarks to change that assessment. The time now is to stop digging that hole, redeploy our forces, save American lives and begin to push a political settlement. I'll conclude by saying yesterday, Madam President, yesterday's release of the unclassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate, quote "in the terrorist threat to the United States homeland," end of quote, highlights the urgency of changing our course in Iraq. The so-called NIE is a devastating indictment of the administration's failure to accomplish its most important mission: destroying al Qaeda and the threat it poses. It confirms what was reported last week. The al Qaeda we failed to finish off in Afghanistan and Pakistan, because we went into Iraq, has quote "regenerated," and it remains intent on attacking us at home. That should put to rest once and for all this administration's false refrain that we're fighting over there so we don't have to fight them over here. That's rubbish. And our own intelligence—the N.I.E. is, all the intelligence agencies in the United States government coming to a consensus position. It spotlights the danger posed by al Qaeda in Iraq, a group independent but now affiliated with al Qaeda, of Bin Laden. Al Qaeda in Iraq, Madam President, is a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. Say it again: al Qaeda in Iraq is a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. It did not exist in Iraq, prior to our invasion. The failed policies, the failure to deal with an administrative policy, a political solution, what it does now is it helps al Qaeda energize extremists around the world, raise money for new recruits, and become stronger, all the more reason we must act now, Madam President, to refocus our energies and resources on al Qaeda and start to get our troops out of Iraq's civil war while limiting the mission of those that remaining to deny al Qaeda in Iraq a safe haven. Finally, Madam President, I say to my colleagues that regardless of your views on the war and how to end it, there is one commitment each and every one of us should make. That commitment is so long as there is a single, a single American troop in Iraq, a single American troop in Iraq that we should do all that is needed to give them the best possible protection this country can provide. And the way to start with that is these mine-resistant vehicles, to replace the Humvees with these vehicles that in our last authorization—our, the supplemental, I was able to convince our colleagues to add $1.7 billion more to build them. These vehicles have a v-shaped hull and they can reduce causalities from roadside bombs by up to 80%, and right now 70% all casualties taking place in Iraq are because of roadside bombs. Madam President, I'm going to, I will offer an amendment to the defense bill when we get to it to make clear, without absolutely no ambiguity, that Congress will provide every single dollar needed and every authority necessary to build these vehicles as quickly as possible because our kids are dying. Our kids are dying and it can be radically reduced, the number of casualties. So let me conclude. Mr. President, by saying, our Republican colleagues say, and even my colleagues all of whom I respect, but ones I particularly respect like Senator Lugar, that they expect the President to voluntarily change course. Mr. President, I have absolutely no faith, none whatsoever, in this President being able to voluntarily do what should be done. The only way it's going to happen is when my Republican friends stop voting for the President and start voting to end this war by supporting our troops. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 04:57 AM Topic: Don't cheat our soldiers-
BIDEN to PRESIDENT: 'Don't Cheat Our Soldiers Out of Their Education Benefits' October 19, 2007 BIDEN: ‘They kept their promise to us and we must keep our promises to them.' BIDEN: ‘There is no excuse for playing games with their hard-earned benefits.' Washington, DC - Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) sent a letter to President Bush urging him to conduct a comprehensive review of the policies surrounding deployment times for our National Reserve and Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Recent reports have indicated that National Reserve and Guard units have been denied education benefits because they were one or two days short of their service requirements. Responding to these reports, Sen. Biden called on the President to provide the full benefits due to soldiers who have honorably served this nation. The full text of the letter follows. October 18, 2007 The President The White House Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: I urge you to conduct a thorough review of the policies and practices surrounding deployment times for our Reserve and Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have heard anecdotal accounts and seen press reports that many Reserve and Guard units are sent home from Iraq and Afghanistan just as their service times would make them eligible for education benefits. If this was done intentionally, it is outrageous. If it was accidental, it must be fixed. Our citizen-soldiers take on service to this nation while also holding down civilian jobs. There is no excuse for playing games with their hard-earned benefits. Most recently, units based in Iowa and Minnesota have confronted this problem. According to press reports, even though all served the required 20 consecutive months on active duty, large portions of these units were a day or two short of the 730 days requirement due to their specific deployment orders. The Iowa National Guard's 133rd Battalion spent almost two years in Iraq - making them the longest serving Guard unit in the United States since World War II. The members of the "Ironman Battalion" served honorably during their time in Iraq, but over 500 of them were told they are not eligible for full G.I. Bill educational benefits because their orders were for 725 to 729 days, just short of the 730 days required. The 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry Division based in Minnesota was deployed in Iraq 30 days longer than any other unit serving in Iraq at the time. Unfortunately, over half of the members of the "Red Bulls" were told they did not qualify for G.I. Bill educational benefits because their orders only had them on duty for 729 days - one day shy of the minimum needed to qualify for the benefits. These soldiers - fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters - are heroes by any standard and should be treated as nothing less. Instead, if these reports are true, they are being cheated of benefits by either a disturbing lack of attention to detail by those handling the deployment orders or by an even more disturbing effort to intentionally disqualify them. In addition, they must now individually struggle with the bureaucracy at the Army Board of Corrections of Military Records, as the Board insists on reviewing each case individually rather than the unit as a whole. This is particularly problematic for those soldiers in school who may not be able to make use of their benefits if the claims process takes too long. When these men and women stepped-up to serve our nation in its time of need, they expected to be treated fairly. They kept their promise to us and we must keep our promises to them. I strongly urge you to expedite the processing of their claims, and to rectify this situation with the utmost haste. Respectfully, Joseph R. Biden, Jr. United States Senator

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 04:39 AM Topic: Troops-delays on life-saving Surveillance System
Senators Call on Pentagon to Investigate Failure to Provide Troops with Life-Saving Surveillance System June 5, 2008 Washington, DC – U.S. Senators Kit Bond (R-MO) and Joseph Biden (D-DE) sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, calling for the Department of Defense to investigate delays in getting a critical surveillance system to our troops in the field. Bond and Biden have been the Senate’s most vocal advocates in ending bureaucratic delays in getting wartime equipment to our troops on the frontlines. The Senators wrote: “There is a real disconnect between what we are hearing from leaders in the field about the need for persistent surveillance and the value of TCVS and the lack of action within the bureaucracy back home. We know that you have established a new Task Force to focus on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance needs. We would appreciate hearing from you or the Task Force regarding how persistent surveillance capability can be provided to our war fighters quickly and effectively. If TCVS is not the right solution, either interim or long-term, please explain why and what efforts are underway to provide a better solution. In addition, we hope you will take a closer look at how the program has been handled so that lessons learned can help us get our warfighters the tools and protection they need without delay.” The full letter is attached and included below: June 2, 2008 The Honorable Robert Gates Dear Mr. Secretary: Recently, you brought attention to a critical issue – ensuring that our troops in the field have the equipment they need. We share your concern that the Department of Defense (DoD) bureaucracy is slow to respond to warfighter needs and inordinately focuses on funding technologies to fight future wars instead of the wars our soldiers are fighting today. You should be aware of a program that could be immediately valuable to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but has not received support from DoD. The Tactical Concealed Video System (TCVS) program is a persistent surveillance asset first brought to DoD’s attention in mid-2005. It is manufactured by Sentrus Government Systems Division, Inc. TCVS is a compact, covert, persistent video and sensor surveillance system used to monitor insurgent-frequented “micro-terrain” that is not accessible to either tower-mounted or tactical unmanned aerial systems. It appears to us that the program has floundered due to mismanagement and lack of support. We first became concerned when we had difficulty getting clear program updates from the Marine Corps and when we received no explanation for an almost yearlong delay in giving the contractor supplemental funds Congress provided to accelerate improvements to the system. Our concerns grew when we read the internal report and TCVS case study prepared by Mr. Franz Gayl on 14, February, 2008. The report – while not a complete Inspector General review – raised disturbing questions, adding to our list of unanswered questions about TCVS. These include the possibility of deliberate delays due to preferences for existing, slow moving programs and other forms of mismanagement that should be investigated. DoD extended an IDIQ contract, valued at $313 million to Sentrus in July 2005, but seemed to move very slowly in acquiring the capability, despite requests for this type of system from commanders in Iraq. The lack of interest from procurement officials in the TCVS system also contradicts the comments of General Petraeus, in testimony to numerous Congressional committees, that one of his top priorities is to provide persistent surveillance assets. In addition, we understand that the senior leadership of II MEF has expressed great interest in acquiring more persistent surveillance systems and specifically asked for TCVS for the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, like requests for TCVS in 2005, 2006, and 2007, that urgent request appears to be stalled and no alternatives are being offered. The TCVS program has been providing operational systems for the last 30 months, but very few have been sent to the front lines. Unless there is a good alternative, we cannot understand this at a time when Marines in theater are subjected to IED and other hostile attacks that could be prevented if sufficient ground surveillance systems were available. If there is another system that is thought to work better, we would like to know about it. Again, our requests for information over the past two years have been ignored or inadequately handled. We understand that Marine Corps Systems Command has instructed Sentrus to curtail its activities and terminate the TCVS Program in Iraq on June 30, 2008. According to Marine Corps officials, the primary reason for halting this critical surveillance system is an alleged decrease in IED attacks. This does not make sense to us as we understood that those attacks actually spiked in April 2008 to one of the highest levels in recent months. While the number of attacks in a given month may fluctuate, the fact that anti-American forces have significant IED capabilities, means we must provide adequate defensive systems. There is a real disconnect between what we are hearing from leaders in the field about the need for persistent surveillance and the value of TCVS and the lack of action within the bureaucracy back home. We know that you have established a new Task Force to focus on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance needs. We would appreciate hearing from you or the Task Force regarding how persistent surveillance capability can be provided to our war fighters quickly and effectively. If TCVS is not the right solution, either interim or long-term, please explain why and what efforts are underway to provide a better solution. In addition, we hope you will take a closer look at how the program has been handled so that lessons learned can help us get our warfighters the tools and protection they need without delay. Thank you for all of your work on behalf of those on the front lines. We look forward to working with you to meet the persistent surveillance need and hope you will be able to get back to us with your findings as soon as possible. Sincerely, Christopher S. Bond Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 03:46 AM Topic: Rachel Corrie's letter from Palestine
Alice Walker reads Rachel Corrie's Letter from Palestine (February 7, 2003) by Voices of a People's History www.vimeo.com/1274721 Alice Walker reads from Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's book Voices of a People's History of the United States, November 11, 2006, at the Berkeley Community Theatre, Berkeley, California. For more information, visit: peopleshistory.us.

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Fri 09/12/08 03:22 AM Topic: John Lewis's Original Speech-from 1963 Edited by Cali66 on Fri 09/12/08 03:26 AM
Brian Jones reads John's Lewis's Original Text of Speech at the Lincoln Memorial 1963 by voices of a peoples history, they say: Brian Jones reads from Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's book Voices of a People's History of the United States, October 22, 2004, at The New York Society for Ethical Culture, New York, NY. For more information, visit: peopleshistory.us. www.vimeo.com/1304006

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Thu 09/11/08 04:07 PM Topic: Rita Lasar on 9/11-Inspirational Speech
Cali, you have to remember that you are dealing with the brainwashed people of this country. They cannot see past the brainwashing they have received the last 7 years to know that joining the world is just what America needed to do a long time ago. We are a world community. The age of being just a little nation all by itself on this section of the earth is gone. The prejudicial and bigoted ideal that we are better than the other nations of the world is only detrimental to us here. One can be proud and patriotic of their own country without being segregatory. I cannot watch videos on my computer so I was not able to see the video but the point is understood. Understood- Thank you,

Cali66 Joined Fri 06/22/07 Posts: 1555	Thu 09/11/08 04:03 PM Topic: Cindy S.-Son was killed in iraq-Speech
Marisa Tomei reads Cindy Sheehan's Speech to the Veterans for Peace Convention (August 5, 2005) www.vimeo.com/1274911 Voices of a people say: Marisa Tomei reads Cindy Sheehan during an evening of performances of Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's book Voices of a People's History of the United States, October 5, 2005, at the Japanese American Cultural and Community Center George and Sakaye Aratani Japan America Theatre, Los Angeles, California. For more information, visit: peopleshistory.us.

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 24 25 Next

Community > Posts By > Cali66

Boost Your Matches & Safety Share Location!

Unable To Connect

Boost Your Matches & Safety
Share Location!