Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Senate Tag

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.

Posted by Amy Miller on July 19, 2015 32 Comments
Today, the State Department sent the Obama Administration's now-infamous Iran nuclear deal to Congress for review. This means that starting now, Congress has 60 days to fully read, analyze, and pass judgment on the bill of goods Obama and Kerry are selling. Will any of that work matter, though? Maybe not. The other parties to the agreement with Iran are putting enormous pressure on the Obama Administration to push this deal through the UN before our Congress has the opportunity to either accept or reject its contents. The Administration, in turn, appears to have decided to take away all of the legitimacy of Congressional review by acquiescing to the demands of the international community---and Congress is not happy about it. Via The Hill:
The battle is uniting Republicans, from conservative firebrand and presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to GOP leadership and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, urged the administration to hold off on the U.N. Security Council vote.

Posted by Amy Miller on July 08, 2015 7 Comments
Yes, that headline is for real. Judging by what happened this week during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I'm almost positive that the Obama Administration is ready to negotiate with Edward Snowden. From the Wall Street Journal:
Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, asked Ms. Yates about recent reports that the U.S. government was in talks with Mr. Snowden and his attorneys over a possible deal that would give him minimal prison time in exchange for returning to the United States and cooperating with U.S. officials. Mr. Snowden leaked large amounts of records about secret U.S. spy programs beginning in 2013, sparking a large public debate about whether there should be curbs on government surveillance. “Mr. Snowden needs to return to the United States and face justice,” Ms. Yates said in response to Mr. Cornyn’s question. She didn’t indicate whether or not the Justice Department was in talks with Mr. Snowden over a plea agreement, though it would have been unusual for her to make such an admission before Congress.
The Committee is right to push on this. A few days ago, former AG Eric Holder (miss him yet?) said in an interview with Yahoo! News that the possibility of a plea bargain is more realistic than you would think:

Posted by Amy Miller on June 27, 2015 17 Comments
This week's SCOTUS opinions have sent American political discourse through all areas of policy, off the pavement, and into the weeds. What's next in the fight to repeal Obamacare? Does the gay marriage ruling mean that my pastor will have to perform same sex ceremonies? They're good questions (and fair questions), and we're right to float them. Gay marriage dominated the end of the week, but the Obamacare debate is still at the forefront of discussion; namely, how we can expect to dismantle this monster of a health care law given this week's latest Supreme wrinkle? Jeb Bush has an idea---and it may put him at odds with other members of the Republican Party. Bush appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio show this week and fielded a controversial question: if elected President, would he support using the "nuclear option" to eliminate the filibuster if it meant the end of Obamacare? At first, Bush seemed to want to focus on a policy solution that could unite Republicans, but when pressed, said he would consider using the controversial tactic. Via Bloomberg:
Hewitt pressed Bush, pointing out that Republicans are unlikely to get 60 Senate to defeat a filibuster if Democrats stick together and block efforts to repeal Obamacare, as they have done for years. "At that point," Hewitt said, "would you at least be open to making the argument that on this issue, before it gets its tentacles too deep, that we break the filibuster and ram through a repeal and replacement?"

Posted by Amy Miller on June 23, 2015 17 Comments
Today, pro-trade members of the Senate won a major battle for free trade after they overcame a liberal filibuster levied against the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), or "fast track" trade authority. Coming into today's cloture vote, analysts weren't 100% sure that Republican leadership would be able to wrangle both their own caucus, and the 14 pro-trade members across the aisle, into agreement over TPA. Going into the weekend, Democrats remained concerned about shuffling the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) provisions to a separate vote, worrying that Republican leadership would go back on their word to advance the job funding program at a later date. Also causing frustration for analysts was the sudden flip-flop of Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Cruz, who announced his run for the presidency earlier this year, today changed his vote on TPA from yea to nay in the wake of pressure from tea party lobbying groups.

Posted by Amy Miller on June 19, 2015 7 Comments
Yesterday the House voted 218-208 to approve the "fast-track" Trade Promotion Authority bill. 28 Democrats sided with pro-trade Republicans, sending the measure on to the Senate. The House took a previous vote on TPA last week, and passed the measure; however, the bill was paired with the TAA, the Trade Adjustment Assistance measure Democrats insist is crucial to protecting American workers from jobs moving overseas. TAA failed to pass, which stalled both TPA and TAA in the House. Yesterday's vote, however, sets up a new series of challenges for Senate leadership if they want to send TPA to the White House. Pro-TPA members of Congress still have a long way to go to approve the "fast track" procedure. TPA is off to the Senate, but TAA remains in limbo:
If the two move separately, Republicans and the White House will have to convince Senate Democrats to back fast-track on the promise that TAA will move forward at a later time. The president spoke with a group of Senate Democrats on Wednesday at the White House, and talks continued in the Senate on Thursday on a way to give the president trade promotion authority, also known as fast-track.

Posted by Amy Miller on June 15, 2015 4 Comments
Contrary to what the headlines are telling you, there's more going on in Congress than the debate over "fast track" free trade agreements. At the end of last month, the Obama Administration worked via the EPA to drastically expand the power federal regulators have over private property owners. The new "Waters of the United States" ("WOTUS") rule (re-dubbed the "Clean Water Rule") was decried as a power grab by both industry moguls and conservative members of Congress, who believe the changes stand to kill jobs and raise the cost of doing business, especially for those working in the agricultural industries. Republican Congressman Bob Gibbs (OH-7) is leading the charge in the House to overturn the WOTUS rule. The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act passed out of the House in mid-May with bipartisan support (237 republicans and 24 democrats voted for the measure) and if enacted, would force the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to overhaul the new rules to specifically identify waters covered and not covered under EPA regulations. The Act would put an emphasis on local control and individual property rights, which Gibbs says should be a key concern for anyone who stands to be affected by and increased EPA presence.

Posted by Amy Miller on June 12, 2015 17 Comments
The debate surrounding congressional approval of "fast track" trade authority has officially taken a swan dive through the looking glass. Obama wants it. House republicans want it. Democrats, for the most part, are ready to vote "no"---their union backers are making them more nervous than the White House ever could---even if it prevents their president from advancing more legacy-building legislation. More from the AP (emphasis mine):
Obama himself, who's been unusually personally engaged on a bill that could amount to the biggest achievement of his second term, paid a surprise visit to the annual congressional baseball game Thursday night for some 11th hour persuading. Obama arrived as Democratic and Republican lawmakers faced off at Nationals Park and was greeted with chants of "TPA! TPA!" from the GOP side — the acronym for the Trade Promotion Authority fast track bill. He brought beer and visited with lawmakers on both sides. Earlier, in a closed meeting in the Capitol, top White House officials implored Democrats not to deny Obama the trade authority. Such a vote, they said, would block needed trade expansion for the nation and sink a major priority of the Democratic president.
It really happened---I was there to see it: obama flake annotated

Posted by Amy Miller on June 03, 2015 15 Comments
Democrats are playing politics with defense funding, and today, the game turned ugly. Since Republicans seized the majority in 2014, Democratic leadership has engaged in a revolt not against specific policies, but against productivity in general. Today, they put the NDAA on their chopping block. Defense funding is chum in the water for Democrats, who whose minority status has forced a tactical shift from all-out bullying via the calendar, to simply threatening to hold good legislation hostage. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said today that, although he hasn't forced the issue yet, Dems may still filibuster defense spending unless Republicans agree to pad the already-passed House version of the bill with cash for other federal agencies. Oh, and if Reid and his caucus don't like that bill? Well, it's clearly a waste of time to even begin a discussion. Watch, via America Rising:

Posted by Amy Miller on June 02, 2015 19 Comments
Today the Senate voted 67-32 to pass the USA-FREEDOM Act, a piece of surveillance (read: privacy!) reform legislation meant to extend key provisions of the PATRIOT Act, which expired Sunday night. The USA-FA passed the House with supermajority, bipartisan support, but found a more hostile crowd waiting when it arrived in the Senate chamber. Rand Paul opposed it, and on Sunday night (the same night the PATRIOT Act expired) blocked a vote that most certainly would have ended with the Act's approval. Senate leadership opposed an immediate clean passage of the Act, but for different reasons entirely---they wanted the opportunity to amend and return to the House, a tactic that was met with opposition in both chambers. From earlier today:
One amendment would extend the timeframe for transferring data collection responsibilities from the NSA to the phone companies, allowing 12 months for that handover rather than six, as the House bill stipulates. Another would force phone companies to give Congress six months' advance notice if they change the procedures they use to collect and retain data. A third would allow the Director of National Intelligence to sign off on any procedural changes by the phone companies before they go into effect. "The House's bill is not holy writ. It's not something we have to accept in its entirety without any changes...and I think where the policy debae should go would be toe embrace these amendments," explained Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, during a floor speech on Tuesday. "We sure need to know that the new system would actually work. Doesn't that just make sense?"

Posted by Amy Miller on May 21, 2015 7 Comments
Today, a procedural vote in the Senate put the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation one step closer to passage. 13 Democrats and 49 Republicans voted to back the legislation, putting the chamber well over the 60 vote threshold to take the next steps toward sending the bill on to the House. Still, the TPA and its backers aren't out of the woods yet, and members of Congress still opposed to the deal are ready and waiting with amendments and tweaks that could halt progress on the bill's passage.
But the path is not clear yet. Amendments could include controversial sanctions on trading partners that manipulate their currencies, a move opposed by the partners. The White House has said it will veto the bill if lawmakers insist on penalties. It instead prefers a diplomatic approach to dissuade countries from deliberately weakening their currencies to make exports cheaper.

Posted by Amy Miller on May 19, 2015 16 Comments
Today Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) joined Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Joni Ernst (R-IA) and business owners in a press conference to discuss the Trade Promotion Authority. The TPA would "fast-track" trade legislation that would pave the way for the yet-incomplete Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Leader McConnell and other proponents of the TPA are giving the legislation priority in spite of a growing debate over both transportation funding, and reauthorization of provisions of the Patriot Act that allow the NSA to collect phone records. Democrats have attempted to put the debate over the TPA until June (thus easing their own time crunch on desired pro-union amendments,) but Senate leadership is bucking all efforts to sideline the bill until after the Memorial Day recess. You can watch the full press conference here (starting at 5:52):

Posted by Amy Miller on May 13, 2015 9 Comments
Whoever would have guessed that trade policy could turn into the US Senate's latest stumbling block? Yesterday, Senate Democrats voted to block the start of debate on a bipartisan bill that would renew and broaden the President's negotiating authority over international trade agreements. The bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority renewal legislation was introduced back in mid-April by U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). If passed, it would give the President authority to negotiate trade deals that would then be sent off to Congress for either rejection or approval. Because the TPA legislation would not permit Congressional amendments to the deals, the update is seen as a "fast track" option. If passed, the TPA could be used to fast-track approval (or rejection) of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; the Partnership would include 11 other nations (both developed and developing), and stands to affect up to 40% of all US imports and exports if approved. The block isn't the end of the TPA renewal, but it represents a divide in the caucus, and the willingness of Democrat leadership to go against the agenda promoted by the White House.

Posted by Amy Miller on May 07, 2015 21 Comments
Today the Senate passed a bill that would give Congress the authority to review the emerging nuclear deal with Iran. The bill---and the vote---was controversial, with many Republicans arguing against final passage; those who opposed sending the bill to the House argued that it was not strong enough, and would not provide a big enough buffer between the Obama Administration, and a nuclear Iran. Fox News explains why Senate leadership pushed so hard for the passage of the bill:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the bill "offers the best chance for our constituents through the Congress they elect to weigh in on the White House negotiations with Iran." Added Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee: "No bill. No review." The legislation would bar Obama from waiving congressional sanctions for at least 30 days while lawmakers examine any final deal. The bill would stipulate that if senators disapprove of the deal, Obama would lose his current power to waive certain economic penalties Congress has imposed on Iran.
Accessibility by WAH