Today the House cleared the FY 2006 Defense bill by voice vote, but forced another short delay in Congressional adjournment by modifying an extension of expiring Patriot Act provisions which was passed by the Senate. The Senate is now planning on returning at 8:00 this evening (after their long day yesterday) to clear the revised legislation (S 2167). The bill, which is set to expire December 31, would extend 16 provisions of the 2001 anti-terrorism law.

After voting 52-48 on the procedural challenge previously mentioned, the Senate voted 50-50 on the budget cuts bill. The bill they voted on is different from the one which came out of conference in that it does not include some minor language concerning medicaid liabilities and a number of government reports.

We haven't directly mentioned this yet here, but the inclusion of language opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the defense appropriations bill is an awful decision. Not only is the provision not related to the defense appropriations bill (and therefore should be struck through a procedural challege), but it is also a crude, callous, and reprehensible attempt by Sen.

The U.S. Senate is supposed to be spending 10 hours today debating the budget cuts reconciliation bill. But a substantial portion of the debate has been spent sparring over the reauthorization of the U.S. Patriot Act and the inclusion of ANWR in the Defense Appropriations bill. While these are certainly very important debates to be had, it's hard to understand why the debate is not about the budget cuts. Do Senators not have anything to say about the cuts? Do they think the changes they will vote for shortly are unimportant? Are Senators ashamed of what they are proposing in this bill?