IP: Madcap maneuvers halt Microsoft hearing on Capitol Hill

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:12:57 -0500
> To: politech () politechbot com
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
>
> Charles James, DOJ antitrust chief:
> http://www.mccullagh.org/cgi-bin/photosearch.cgi?name=charles+james
>
> Hearing announcement:
> http://judiciary.senate.gov/hr121201f.htm
>
> ---
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/antitrust/0,1551,49091,00.html
>
>    Madcap Maneuvers Halt MS Hearing
>    By Declan McCullagh and Ben Polen
>    2:05 p.m. Dec. 12, 2001 PST
>
>    WASHINGTON -- A highly-anticipated Senate hearing on the Justice
>    Department's antitrust settlement with Microsoft came to an abrupt end
>    soon after it began Wednesday morning.
>
>    The session before the Senate Judiciary committee was intended to be
>    an opportunity for congressional critics to jab at the deal, and the
>    first chance for Charles James, the Justice Department's antitrust
>    chief, to tell Capitol Hill what the Bush administration thought of
>    Microsoft.
>
>    Joining him was Stanford University law prof Lawrence Lessig, who flew
>    in to testify, as did Matthew Szulik, CEO of Red Hat.
>
>    They didn't even get a chance to speak.
>
>    [...]
>
> ---
>
> Floor remarks follow:
>
> MR. BYRD: MR. PRESIDENT, WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD?
>
> THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA.
>
> MR. BYRD: MR. PRESIDENT, WHILE THE LEADER IS ON THE FLOOR AND WHILE MR. BAUCUS
> IS ON THE FLOOR -- WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD TO ME FOR FIVE MINUTES?
>
> A SENATOR: YES.
>
> MR. BYRD: HAS THE FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORTED OUT THE FAST-TRACK BILL? IS HE
> GOING TO TODAY? WHEN? DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE -- DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE
> PERMISSION TO MEET? I ASK -- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, MR. PRESIDENT.
>
> THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA.
>
> MR. BYRD: MR. PRESIDENT, FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE SENATE, WHAT IS THE RULE
> WITH RESPECT TO THE MEETING OF COMMITTEES DURING THE OPERATION OF THE SENATE,
> WHILE THE SENATE IS IN SESSION?.
>
> THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WHEN THE SENATE IS IN SESSION, THE COMMITTEES MAY MEET
> FOR TWO HOURS BUT NOT BEYOND THAT.
>
> MR. BYRD: AS OF TODAY, WHEN WOULD THAT TIME EXPIRE?
>
> THE PRESIDING OFFICER: 11:30.
>
> MR. BYRD: 11:30? SO THE COMMITTEE --
>
> THE PRESIDING OFFICER: 11:30 A.M.
>
> MR. BYRD: SO THE COMMITTEE MAY NOT MEET AFTER 11:30 WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF
> THE SENATE?
>
> THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR IS CORRECT.
>
> MR. BYRD: I'LL PUT THE SENATE ON NOTICE, I WILL OBJECT TO THAT COMMITTEE'S
> MEETING AFTER 11:30 TODAY, WHILE THE SENATE IS IN SESSION. MR. PRESIDENT, 
> ALONG
> THAT LINE, MAY I SAY THAT I HAVE ASKED THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FINANCE 
> COMMITTEE TO
> GIVE SOME OF THOSE OF US WHO ARE OPPOSED TO FAST-TRACK AN OPPORTUNITY TO 
> APPEAR
> BEFORE THE       COMMITTEE. I'M NOT ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, AND I WOULD LIKE
> TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE THAT COMMITTEE AND SPEAK AGAINST
> FAST-TRACK. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR. AND I MADE THAT PERSONAL REQUEST OF THE
> CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE YESTERDAY. AND HE SAID, WELL, I COULD APPEAR BEFORE
> THE COMMITTEE AFTER IT HAD ACTED ON FAST-TRACK, AFTER IT HAD MARKED UP THE 
> BILL.
>
> WELL, THERE'S NO POINT IN MY APPEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AFTER IT'S MARKED
> UP. THAT'S REALLY A SILLY SUGGESTION, IF I MAY SAY SO. I'LL MAKE MY 
> PROPOSAL --
> MY IMPASSIONED PLEA TO THE SENATE AFTER THE COMMITTEE HAS MET AND MARKED 
> UP THE
> BILL. WHY SHOULD I GO OVER AND APPEAR BEFORE THAT COMMITTEE AFTER THEY'VE 
> MARKED
> UP THE BILL? WHAT A SILLY PROPOSITION.
> MR. PRESIDENT, THERE ARE THOSE OF US -- THERE ARE A FEW AROUND HERE WHO OBJECT
> TO FAST-TRACK, AND I AM SORRY THAT THE DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN OF THAT 
> COMMITTEE
> SAID NO. NOW, I DON'T THINK I WOULD SAY THAT, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE 
> APPROPRIATIONS
> COMMITTEE, I DON'T THINK I WOULD SAY THAT TO ANY SENATOR. I WOULDN'T SAY 
> IT TO A
> REPUBLICAN SENATOR, I WOULDN'T SAY IT TO A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR. THE VERY 
> IDEA ON
> A MATTER THAT'S AS IMPORTANT AS FAST-TRACK TO DISCUSS AROUND HERE... I'M JUST
> DISAPPOINTED THAT A SENATOR WOULD GET THAT KIND OF A BRUSHOFF.
> NOW UNDERSTAND, I WENT TO THE DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN YESTERDAY AND ASKED 
> HIM IF
> HE WOULD MIND PUTTING IT OFF -- THAT MATTER OFF AND ALLOW SOME OF US -- THERE
> ARE A FEW OF US; I KNOW ONE SENATOR WHO'S AGAINST FAST-TRACK -- TO ALLOW US TO
> APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. AND I GOT KIND OF A BRUSHOFF, I'D SAY. WELL, 
> ALL I
> COULD SAY WAS THAT I WAS DISAPPOINTED. I'M STILL DISAPPOINTED.
> BUT LET ME READ A SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION TO SENATORS. SECTION 7 OF 
> ARTICLE
> 1, PARAGRAPH 1, "ALL BILLS FOR RAISING REVENUES SHALL ORIGINATE IN THE 
> HOUSE OF
> REPRESENTATIVES, BUT" -- NOW GET THIS. "BUT" FAST-TRACK IS BROUGHT TO THE
> SENATE, SENATORS MAY NOT PROPOSE AMENDMENTS. THAT'S NOT IN ACCORD -- MY WAY OF
> READING THE CONSTITUTION -- THAT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT THE 
> CONSTITUTION
> SAYS. WHAT DID THE FRAMERS MEAN? IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THEY MEANT THAT THE SENATE
> COULD AMEND ON ANY BILL.
> LET ME READ THE WHOLE SECTION AGAIN. THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH. SECTION 7, "ALL 
> BILLS
> FOR RAISING REVENUE SHALL ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, BUT THE
> SENATE MAY PROPOSE OR CONCUR WITH AMENDMENTS AS ON OTHER BILLS."
> IT DOESN'T SAY IT SHALL. THE SENATE MAY NOT WANT TO OFFER ANY AMENDMENTS. 
> BUT IT
> MAY. NOW WE COME ALONG WITH THIS SO-CALLED TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY. HA! 
> WHAT A
> MISNOMER THAT IS. AND THAT'S PLAIN-OLD FAST-TRACK.
> A LOT OF SENATORS AND HOUSE MEMBERS ARE GOING TO GO TO THEIR OBLIVION ON THE
> FAST-TRACK IF THE PEOPLE BACK HOME EVER WAKE UP TO WHAT'S GOING ON.
> "BUT THE SENATE MAY PROPOSE OR CONCUR WITH AMENDMENTS AS ON OTHER BILLS." IT
> DOESN'T SAY "AS ON SOME OTHER BILLS." OR "AS ON CERTAIN OTHER BILLS." IT SAYS
> "AS ON OTHER BILLS."
> NOW, IT SEEMS TO ME THE SENATE HAS A RIGHT TO AMEND. AND I KNOW 
> THAT  THERE ARE
> SOME OF US WHO SOUGHT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE SUPREME          COURT ON THE 
> SUBJECT
> OF THE LINE-ITEM VETO, AND THE SUPREME          COURT RULED THAT WE DO NOT
> QUALIFY BECAUSE WE PERSONALLY WERE
> NOT INJURED BY THE LINE ITEM VETO. BUT ON A DAYS, WHICH WAS LATER BROUGHT BY
> PARTIES THAT DID QUALIFY, AS HAVING BEEN INJURED, THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT
> THE LINE-ITEM VETO WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
> NOW, I WONDER WHAT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD SAY ABOUT FAST-TRACK?
> ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. WELL,
> I MERELY RAISE THAT QUESTION, MR. PRESIDENT. IF THE COMMITTEE CAN COMPLETE ITS
> BUSINESS BEFORE 11:30, WHY, THAT WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES. BUT 
> IF IT
> DOESN'T, I HOPE SOMEBODY ON THAT COMMITTEE      WILL RAISE THE POINT THAT THE
> SENATE DOESN'T HAVE PERMISSION ­ THE COMMITTEE DOESN'T HAVE PERMISSION TO 
> MEET.
> AND I WOULD OBJECT TO ANY REQUEST THAT'S MADE TO THAT TODAY. MR. PRESIDENT,
> I THANK THE DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FOR YIELDING. I THANK HIM.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/