Image 01 Image 03

US Senate Tag

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.

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

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:

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?"

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.

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):

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.

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.

Last year, the push for patent reform hit a roadblock in Congress when then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to bring the Patent Abuse Reduction Act to the floor for a vote. In the war between industry advocates and trial lawyers, Reid chose the trial lawyers, and the patent trolls were off the hook. The new Republican majority is looking to break that pattern of obstruction. A new iteration of patent reform legislation is currently making its way through the Senate. A bill introduced on Wednesday would target firms that make their money not via innovation, but by filing bogus lawsuits against the innovators under the guise of protecting intellectual property. The bill, which is a product of negotiations between both parties, would place restrictions on "demand letters" sent by firms, end the practice of using shell corporations to hide who owns (or "owns") a patent, and shift the responsibility for paying court costs if the suit is not “objectively reasonable.” Patent reform is one of those unicorn-type issues that has bipartisan support, even if its backers sometimes disagree on the specifics.

This week, the Senate recognized the passing of the first 100 days of the new majority Congress. We've covered the good, the bad, and the ugly here at Legal Insurrection (read it here). The Senate has hit a lot of high points. In addition to passing an actual budget, they passed the hotly-contested Keystone XL pipeline approval, advanced bipartisan trade legislation, and shined light on the plight of domestic human trafficking. Stark differences from Harry Reid's Senate abound. Watch the primed-for-fundraising video the NRSC produced to highlight those differences: Of course, that's not the whole story.

By a vote of 56–43, the Senate confirmed Loretta Lynch as Eric Holder's replacement today. Lynch will be the first African-American woman to serve as attorney general. Legal Insurrection has vocally opposed the confirmation of Loretta Lynch, and painfully so, seeing as the Attorney General to-be was a law school classmate of Professor Jacobson's. Our objections, like the objections of many, revolve around Lynch's views on prosecutorial discretion and President Obama's executive immigration overreach. The reader may recall Lynch's nomination hearings. During these hearings, Lynch made no indication she would handle President Obama's executive immigration overreach in a manner that differed from Eric Holder. Ten Republicans voted to confirm Loretta Lynch. They are, in no particular order:

We've got some real staffer-on-senator, Republican-on-Democrat violence brewing up in Wisconsin---and it (mercifully) has nothing at all to do with the 2016 presidential cycle. Senator Tammy Baldwin's former Deputy State Director has officially filed an ethics complaint against the Wisconsin democrat, accusing the Senator of firing and demoting staffers in an effort to cover up mishandling of a whistleblower complaint about a Wisconsin VA hospital. Marquette Baylor is represented by Kansas City attorney Todd Graves, a former U.S. attorney and advocate for the conservative nonprofit Wisconsin Club for Growth. The trouble started when a complaint reached Baldwin's state-based caseworkers about alleged patient abuse at the Tomah VA hospital. According to the whistleblower, patients at Tomah were being prescribed dangerous amounts of prescription narcotics. A later Congressional investigation would show that the patients at Tomah were not only more likely to receive high doses of narcotics, but that three veterans died after receiving treatment there. The investigation also revealed a "culture of fear" that intimidated hospital employees and compromised patient care.

It seems incomprehensible that in 2015, I would have to write a headline hinting at begrudging support on the part of Democrats for modern day slaves. And yet here I sit, after watching more than a month's debate over the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, finally able to report that the Democrats have finally relented in their all-out war against the JVTA, and we should see a vote soon. We finally have a deal. In a battle that mostly came down to optics, Democrats have finally agreed to a fee structure benefiting victims of trafficking that would flow through the appropriations process. This system will still invoke the Hyde Amendment's abortion funding prohibitions, but avoid the spectre of a Hyde "expansion" that Democrats used to block the bill's passage. This means that, once the JVTA is taken care of, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will allow a vote on the nomination of Loretta Lynch as the next attorney general. The bizarre and infuriating part about all this is that Reid recently played games with an idea very similar to the one currently on the table---a fact that JVTA sponsor John Cornyn highlighted in a speech pushing for final passage:

Maybe it's just me talking here, but I think that if you're going to choose a hill to die on, one involving a bill that helps put an end to modern day slavery seems like a pretty good choice. Not so if you're a Democrat, or have a seemingly vested interest in seeing Loretta Lynch become our next Attorney General. Democrats are digging in on the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act over the application of the Hyde Amendment, a decades-old add-on to federal spending legislation that will prevent the use of fee dollars collected via the Act to be used to pay for abortions. Again, Democrats are obstructing the passage of a bill that would protect victims of rape and forced prostitution because of the inclusion of a provision that they have approved in decades of federal spending legislation. You can't tell me this is about being pro-choice; I think this is about being pro-obstruction for the sake of obstruction itself. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised to delay a vote on the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as the new AG until Democrats put an end to their little game, and guess what hasn't happened yet? Dems are still playing games, so Loretta Lynch is still waiting on a confirmation vote.

There have been a number of reactions to the Corker-Menendez bill, which provides for Congressional oversight of whatever nuclear deal the administration makes with Iran. It passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday with a 19-0 vote. J. E. Dyer at Liberty Unyielding looks at the numbers and sees the bill as a loss.
If Congress rejects the Iran deal, and the president vetoes its legislation, Congress will have the balance of a 52-day period to override the veto. If the Senate finds itself unable to act, at some point in this process, Obama’s deal can be implemented without assent from the Senate. To override a veto, of course, opponents will need 67 votes. To uphold a veto, Obama just has to make sure there are 34 votes for his deal. He doesn’t have to have even 51 votes to implement it. With 34, he’s got a major win. The beauty of this for Obama is that he still gets a win if the Senate at any point can’t bring a floor vote. His deal just gets implemented because the Senate failed to act. So it won’t matter if the president has 34 votes for the Iran deal, but not enough to bring the deal to a vote. The win for Obama is merely less photogenic in that case. The effect is the same.

Democrats in the Senate are playing politics with a bill that would take major steps to protect the victims of human trafficking. The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, a bipartisan effort spearheaded by Texas Senator and Majority Whip John Cornyn, would would crack down on traffickers themselves, while providing more resources to the victims of modern day slavery. Democrats are blocking the bill because of language that would use the Hyde Amendment to prevent fee revenue from being used to pay for abortions. They're posturing on the issue in an effort to look strong on women's issues, but the mainstream media is turning on the minority caucus. Some of the nation's most widely-read publications have come out in favor of the bill, in spite of its invocation of the Hyde Amendment. The Washington Post ed board has their quibbles with the bill, but they still want Dems to do it...for the children:

At this point, it should be obvious to most people that Obama doesn't have Israel's best interests in mind. Even Democratic members of the Senate are coming around. The Times of Israel:
Senators warn Obama against rescinding UN veto As reports proliferate that US leadership is considering stripping Israel of the protective diplomatic umbrella with which it has historically provided the Jewish state in the international arena — including its previously guaranteed vetoing of UN resolutions damaging to Jerusalem — a bipartisan group of US senators urged President Barack Obama in a letter Monday to avoid threatening Israel with such punitive measures and to reassert Washington’s support for the state. The letter obtained by the Times of Israel was signed by two Democrats and two Republicans who did not directly criticize the president’s policies, but did warn that “using the United Nations to push Israel and the Palestinians to accept terms defined by others will only ensure that the parties themselves are not committed to observing these provisions.”...

The news of Harry Reid's decision to retire at the end of his current term is already causing speculation about who will fill his role and lead senate Democrats. Charles Schumer of New York seems like an obvious choice to some, but the party's Warren wing is always eager to give the junior senator from Massachusetts a promotion. Peter Schroeder of The Hill:
On Wall Street, Dem shake-up puts party at crossroads Harry Reid’s decision to not seek reelection could open another front in the battle for the direction of the Democratic Party, and its complicated relationship with Wall Street. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) emerged as the immediate favorite to take over as the chamber’s top Democrat, but his rise could further intensify an already heated debate about the party’s approach to the financial sector, one of his home state’s biggest industries. Led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), liberals with a harsh perspective on Wall Street have seen their voice and influence within the Democratic Party grow of late. The freshman senator’s fierce recriminations of big bankers have attracted plenty of attention on the left and launched her into a spot in Senate leadership, just two years into the job. That message also provided the foundation for a relentless campaign to get her to challenge Hillary Clinton, who many on the left are wary of for ties to the financial sector. That same groundswell could complicate Schumer’s bid to lead Senate Democrats. “I don’t know how he’s going to play this, I really don’t,” said one financial lobbyist. “He’s got huge personal and political interest in the financial industry…they’re the biggest employers in his state.”
According to the Washington Post, Reid has endorsed Schumer to replace him.