Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Senate Tag

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.

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.
Accessibility by WAH