Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Senate Tag

Posted by Taryn O'Neill on May 05, 2016 44 Comments
As we've seen for months, the burning question thrown at Republican candidates around the nation has been, "Will you support Donald Trump if he's the nominee?" Democrats and media alike have worked to tie republican candidates to the newly declared presumptive GOP presidential nominee, who is arguably the most despised political candidate in modern U.S. history. Unfortunately, 24 GOP Senate seats are up for election in November, many of which the Democrats see as ripe for the plucking. Due in part to the Tea Party effect in 2010, the Democrats are only defending 10 seats. Even worse, as the Huffington Post points out, is the fact that 6 of the Republican senators are in states that President Obama won twice. The Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee has wasted little time, launching its "Party of Trump" campaign back in March. The effort seeks to scorn vulnerable Senate Republicans with their prior remarks, including those promising that they would support the Republican presidential nominee, whoever he or she turns out to be.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on May 01, 2016 22 Comments
As he has repeatedly stated, Obama is confident that a Democrat will win the White House in November, and now Harry Reid is expressing that he is "fairly certain" that Democrats will take back the Senate this year. The Hill reports:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Sunday that he thinks his party will win back the majority in the Senate this year. During a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, Reid detailed the Democratic efforts against several vulnerable GOP senators up for reelection this year.
Considering that Democrats need win only five Senate seats (they currently have 46 seats, including the two Independents who caucus with them) to accomplish this goal and given the disarray on the right, Reid's prediction seems far less laughable than it would have only a year ago. The Hill continues:
“We only need four [seats] to take the majority,” he said. “With the numbers I’ve given you, it’s going to be a fairly certain thing that we can do that.”

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on April 10, 2016 10 Comments
Apparently, Mitch McConnell is trying to undermine the senate run of a conservative candidate from Indiana that he sees as a potential disruptive force like Ted Cruz. CNN reports:
Rep. Marlin Stutzman is a member of the anti-leadership House Freedom Caucus, a conservative in the mold of Ted Cruz and a three-term Indiana congressman who voted against John Boehner as speaker. Now, he wants a promotion to the Senate -- and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his allies want to stop that. Privately, McConnell has made clear to his confidantes that he wants to bolster the candidacy of Stutzman's chief GOP rival, Rep. Todd Young, and push him over-the-top in the May 3 primary, according to sources familiar with the conversations.
This move is purportedly motivated, at least in part, by Stutzman's vote against John Boehner. CNN continues:

Posted by Amy Miller on November 08, 2015 26 Comments
The Senate is known for its well-prepared speeches and high-profile filibusters; what it's not known for is for those speeches to have any real or lasting effect on long-term policymaking in Washington. A freshman senator may have changed all that this week (okay, this is bluster, but bear with me) with his "maiden" floor speech, in which he spent a great deal of time offering the perspective he gained from over a year's worth of observation. Ben Sasse (R-NE) waited until this week to address his colleagues in the Senate chamber---and boy did he make the most of it. He used his time at the mic to criticize the partisanship, grandstanding, and public bickering that defines the culture of "the greatest deliberative body in the world." Watch:

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on October 24, 2015 7 Comments
Rand Paul's disappointing poll numbers and fundraising for his presidential campaign are reportedly a cause for concern among the GOP both in his home state of Kentucky and in Washington. Last week, reports indicated that donors and the Kentucky GOP were urging Rand to focus on his senate reelection bid rather than on his flailing presidential campaign. The AP reported:
A defiant Rand Paul is brushing off weak fundraising and weaker poll numbers as would-be donors and home state Republicans push him to abandon an uphill presidential bid to focus on his Senate re-election. . . . . But back in Kentucky, a growing chorus of Republicans suggested that Paul's Senate re-election was by no means guaranteed, despite the state's strong GOP leanings and the lack of a clear Democratic challenger. "He could lose both positions," said Patricia Vincent, chairwoman of the Graves County Republican Party. "He just needs to work a little bit more to make sure he still has a seat in the Senate."

Posted by Amy Miller on October 22, 2015 3 Comments
Today, a controversial cybersecurity bill aimed at making it easier for corporations to prevent hacking attacks advanced in the Senate with bipartisan support. The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) in its current form would make it possible for corporations to share information about cyberattacks with each other---or the goverment---without having to worry about fielding privacy-based lawsuits. The bill enjoys bipartisan support in the Senate---and has languished under bipartisan opposition, led by Kentucky Senator and Presidential hopeful Rand Paul. From Reuters:
But many privacy activists and a few lawmakers, including Republican Senator Rand Paul and Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, vehemently oppose it. Several big tech companies also have come out against the measure, arguing that it fails to protect users' privacy and does too little to prevent cyber attacks.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on October 07, 2015 32 Comments
Tuesday, Senator Cruz chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts titled “Opportunity Denied: How Overregulation Harms Minorities” that investigated the harmful effects of government overregulation on people and businesses who lack the resources and political connections to deal effectively with mountains of red tape. According to his office, Cruz invited Harry Alford, president and CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce; Michael Barrera, national economic prosperity manager, The LIBRE Institute; Sabina Loving, owner and operator, Loving Tax Services, Inc.; and Timothy Sandefur, principal attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation. Their testimony focused on the harmful effects of government overregulation on the African-American and Hispanic communities and on the experience of small businesses within these communities. Democrat witnesses included Aaron Mair, president of the Sierra Club; Amit Narang, regulation policy advocate at Public Citizen; and William Scott, CEO of Tristatz, LLC. “Fifty-five years ago, there were 13 regulatory federal government agencies. Today, there are over 70," said Senator Cruz. This is where Cruz shines his brightest. Questioning Sierra Club President Aaron Mair, Senator Cruz challenged Mair to name one instance harmful government regulation:

Posted by Amy Miller on September 09, 2015 11 Comments
Today I attended the much-anticipated Cruz-Trump Iran deal protest on Capitol Hill. It was a scorcher---97 degrees when I finally surrendered to an air conditioned cab---but the rally boasted an impressive turnout. The crowd, for the most part, was focused on protesting not only the specific Iranian nuclear deal, but the path down which Obama's foreign policy has taken us. 100% of the attendees I talked to see the deal as one more foolish, stupid, naive move by the Obama Administration. For most, opposition was apolitical; I spoke to many people who were grateful for the protest votes of Chuck Schumer and other Democrats, even if those announcements came too little and too late to give the White House pause. These signs were floating around everywhere, and for the most part sum up the mood in the crowd: death to america iran rally sign

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 05, 2015 8 Comments
Republican South Carolina senator Tim Scott appeared on CNN yesterday and was questioned by host Brianna Keilar for saying all lives matter. His response was brilliant. Josh Feldman of Mediaite has a partial transcript:
Sen. Tim Scott: If ‘All Lives Matter’ Really Offends You, That’s Your Problem Senator Tim Scott said tonight that if people are honestly offended by him or anyone else saying “all lives matter,” that’s their problem. On CNN tonight, Scott told Brianna Keilar, “If it causes offense to say that all lives matter, black lives, white lives, police officers… if that is somehow offensive to someone, that’s their issue, not mine.”

Posted by Amy Miller on September 02, 2015 43 Comments
Today Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski committed her vote in support of the controversial Iran nuclear deal, bringing the total number of Senators backing the deal to 34---the magic number needed to ensure Democrats can sustain President Obama's veto should Senators opposed to the deal bring forward a resolution of disapproval. More from the AP:
Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland became the crucial 34th vote in favor of the agreement. "No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian regime," Mikulski said in a statement. She called the accord "the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb. For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this deal." The backing from Mikulski, who is retiring next year, gives supporters the margin they need to uphold an Obama veto of a congressional resolution of disapproval if Republicans pass such a measure later this month. And it spells failure for opponents of the international agreement who sought to foil it by turning Congress against it. Leading that effort were Israel and its allies in the U.S., who failed to get traction after spending millions of dollars trying.
Reaction on both sides, of course, exploded:

Posted by Amy Miller on August 27, 2015 6 Comments
As the vote on the controversial Iran nuclear deal looms, democrats on Capitol Hill and in the White House are pushing forward with their efforts to ensure that their caucus stands as intact as possible against Republican attacks. Thus far, their efforts have produced results, if not perfect ones. The defection of powerful Senate democrat Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and the high profile split of two freshman House dems, has dinged the optic surrounding the deal, but overall, the White House has every reason to be optimistic. Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that she has more than enough votes to sustain a veto in the House (fewer than 60 House dems have announced their opposition,) and in the Senate, Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) has cast doubts about the future success of opposition efforts. Still, the White House is nervous. Invoking the veto on such a high-profile issue could move voter confidence in the wrong direction, and destroy what little credibility Obama has left on the international stage. More from Politico:

Posted by Mike LaChance on August 20, 2015 15 Comments
Rand Paul is dealing with some tricky rules as he tries to run for president and hold on to his senate seat at the same time. Chris Moody of CNN reports:
Rand Paul's tough choice Rand Paul has a choice: Spend nearly half a million dollars to keep his increasingly longshot presidential ambitions alive in his home state or leave the Senate. For now, he's choosing to pony up. Paul's political future rests partially in the hands of nearly 350 Republican officials in Kentucky, who will decide Saturday whether to approve a costly plan that would allow him to run in Kentucky for president and the U.S. Senate simultaneously—and possibly salvage his chances of staying in electoral politics after 2016. The proposal, which acts as a work-around of a state law that forbids candidates in Kentucky from running for two federal offices at the same time, would establish a presidential caucus in early March in addition to the state primary scheduled two months later.

Posted by David Gerstman on August 19, 2015 25 Comments
By now, Sen. Jeff Flake's (R - Ariz.) announcement that he will oppose the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has been overshadowed by Sen. Robert Menendez' (D - N.J.) Tuesday announcement of his opposition. Still, I'd like to revisit Flake's announcement because he was viewed by the administration, in the words of one report, as a "gettable" Republican. With Flake's announcement it now appears that President Barack Obama will not be able to claim bipartisan support for the JCPOA. I don't know how "gettable," Flake was. To be sure, at the July 23 Senate Foreign Relations hearing Flake was much less adversarial than most other Republicans on the committee, and that played a role in maintaining the impression that he perhaps looked favorably upon the deal. He also was less adversarial than Menendez. However, he asked Kerry some very solid questions and Kerry's responses were awful. How awful? Early in his question and answer session Flake asked Kerry about language in the JCPOA that allowed Iran to opt out if sanctions were re-imposed.

Posted by Amy Miller on July 29, 2015 17 Comments
This week, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released it's third video documenting Planned Parenthood's participation in baby part harvesting. If you watch the video (you must watch the video,) be warned---it's nauseating. I don't give these kinds of warnings lightly. When CMP first launched its campaign against Planned Parenthood, conservatives in the Senate came together to draft legislation defunding Planned Parenthood and its affiliates. The team, headed up by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), today introduced S.1881, which includes three main objectives:
  • Prohibiting federal funding for PPFA or any of its affiliate organizations
  • Protecting federal funding for health services for women (including diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, well-child care, prenatal and postnatal care, immunizations, cervical and breast cancer screenings and more)
  • Ensuring there is no reduction in overall federal funding available to support women’s health.
In a press conference announcing the bill, sponsor Joni Ernst spoke out against PPFA's harvesting-for-profit scheme, saying, “As a mother and grandmother, I find this footage of Planned Parenthood’s role in the harvesting of the organs of unborn babies morally reprehensible and vile... The American people are horrified by these videos as well. Simply put, this legislation ensures that funding for women’s health is protected and that taxpayer dollars will not go to Planned Parenthood.” You can watch that press conference here:

Posted by Amy Miller on July 28, 2015 11 Comments
When Walter Scott was was shot earlier this year during what should have been a routine traffic stop, the country launched itself into a justified discussion over how local governments should work to ensure the safety of citizens during encounters with police---without crossing the line into invasive surveillance. The Walter Scott case hit South Carolina Senator Tim Scott hard, and those raw emotions spilled over on the night of the Charleston shootings. He may be touted as the GOP's "only black senator," but for Scott, his efforts to reform the criminal justice system have less to do with race, and more to do with a renewed effort by members of both parties to rebuild trust in inner city communities. Today, Scott is slated to introduce a bill that will authorize up to $100 million per year in grant money to pay for body cameras for local police departments. The bill's hefty price tag comes with controversial offsetting provisions, but fortunately for Scott, members of both parties are already on board with various efforts to reform the criminal justice system. More from Politico:
The costs of the five-year bill — named the Safer Officers and Safer Citizens Act of 2015 — would be offset by limiting administrative leave for federal employees to 20 days per year. But that offset is bound to cause some concerns from Democrats who have argued that federal workers have been unfairly targeted by Congress for years.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on July 25, 2015 23 Comments
Ted Cruz has long criticized career politicians in both parties for not listening to the American people; indeed, he started a Twitter hashtag #MakeDCListen on this very issue and has taken to the Senate floor on a number of occasions to urge DC to listen to the people who elected them. His pleas, like ours, fall on deaf ears, but that doesn't stop him from voicing what so many of us have come to believe: Yesterday, Cruz once again took to the Senate floor to berate career politicians in both parties, particularly Republican leadership. The Washington Post reports:
Firebrand Republican senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz did something surprising in the Senate on Friday: He accused the head of his party, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, of lying to his colleagues. “We know now that when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit commitment, that he is willing to say things that he knows are false,” Cruz (Tex.) said. “That has consequences for how this body operates.”

Posted by Mike LaChance on July 24, 2015 10 Comments
John Kerry testified before a senate panel about the awful Iran deal Thursday and was met by skepticism and derision from lawmakers in both parties. In a classic Democrat defense move, Kerry again tried to spin the issue and suggest it's his critics who are being unrealistic. CNN reported:
Kerry to senators: No 'fantasy' alternative to Iran deal Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there is no "unicorn" or "fantasy" alternative if the U.S. rejects the deal, which the administration maintains will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon but which many Republicans see as providing Iran a path to a bomb. But Committee Chairman Bob Corker, a Tennesse Republican, said that the U.S. had been "fleeced" and that Kerry had "turned Iran from being a pariah, to now Congress being a pariah" in the course of making the agreement. And Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who is seeking the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, repeatedly warned that the next president could overturn the deal, which isn't a binding treaty.
Here's a short highlight reel:

Posted by New Neo on July 20, 2015 33 Comments
Obama's Iran deal has generated enormous anger, and some of that ire has been directed at the Republicans in Congress. One of the main accusations against them is that they have made Obama's task easier by passing Corker-Menendez, a bill that allows them to stop the president from lifting the Iranian sanctions unilaterally, but only with a super-majority because Obama could (and indeed would) veto the bill. Then Congress would end up needing a 2/3 majority of both houses to stop him. Why do it that way, critics ask, instead of the simple route of exercising the Senate's treaty power (under Article II Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution) to advise and consent? That would require a two-thirds vote before the treaty is approved rather than requiring a two-thirds vote to stop it. But what a great many critics fail to appreciate is how watered-down the Senate's treaty power has already become ever since FDR, and how much the de facto power of the executive to make international agreements without Congress' say-so has expanded. It's well worth your time to listen to an interview on the subject with Elizabeth Chryst, who is a former elected officer of the U.S. Senate and an expert on how Congress works in terms of rules and procedures. In this recording, she speaks on the subject of the Corker-Menendez bill and why conservatives are dreaming if they think there was ever any chance of blocking the Iran deal as a treaty. That's not a reality that Chryst likes, and she knows that her fellow conservatives are very unhappy to hear it; but she thinks it's a reality they need to face.
Accessibility by WAH