Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Senate Tag

Posted by Amy Miller on April 21, 2015 7 Comments
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:

Posted by Amy Miller on April 17, 2015 28 Comments
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.

Posted by David Gerstman on April 15, 2015 10 Comments
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.

Posted by Amy Miller on April 06, 2015 7 Comments
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:

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 31, 2015 18 Comments
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.”...

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 29, 2015 11 Comments
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.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 25, 2015 9 Comments
All year, U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) uses his "#PorkChop" series to highlight new and exciting ways that the federal government finds to send taxpayer dollars straight down the toilet. Today, in honor of March Madness, Flake has opened up voting in his annual "Egregious 8" tournament, which pits wasteful government programs against one another until only one travesty is left standing. The slice of pork that generates the most votes will advance to the next round---and competition is pretty tight. Take a look at the first matchup: #1 USDA CashCrops vs. #4 NEA Hunk-a-Bully. Which do you think is worse? Screen Shot 2015-03-25 at 6.40.50 PM or...

Posted by Amy Miller on March 19, 2015 26 Comments
Yesterday, Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin took to the floor of the senate and accused the Republican caucus of institutional racism over the postponement of a vote confirming Loretta Lynch as the next attorney general. John McCain was not having it. Today, Senator McCain used his time on the floor to slice into Durbin---and to remind everyone that Democrats have a history of blocking Republican nominees (even the non-white ones!) Watch:

Posted by Amy Miller on March 18, 2015 22 Comments
Rosa Parks. Loretta Lynch. To Senate Democrat Dick Durbin, they're one in the same. Durbin took to the floor of the Senate today to lash out against Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over the delayed confirmation vote for Attorney General candidate Loretta Lynch. Republicans are blocking the vote until two more Democrats sign on to passage of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act; Democrats were scared off the bill earlier this month by accusations from liberal special interests that it expands "anti-choice" regulations under the Hyde Amendment. So, Democrats balked, Republicans dug in their heels, and now Durbin is on the floor of the Senate invoking the shades of segregation. Vintage him: Watch:
Fact is, there is no substantive reason to stop this nomination. But the Republican majority leader announced over the weekend that he was going to hold this nomination...until the bill....passes, whenever that may be. And so, Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman nominated to be Attorney General, is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar. That is unfair. It's unjust. It's beneath the decorum and dignity of the United States Senate. This woman deserves fairness. She seeks to lead the Department of Justice, and the United States senate should be just in its treatment of her nomination. To think that we would jeopardize her opportunity to serve this nation, and to make history, is fundamentally unfair.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 17, 2015 15 Comments
"Human trafficking" is a pretty whitewashed term for something so ugly. Peel away the layers and you'll find stories that don't sound like they should come from the United States. You'll find rape, and sexual assault. And abuse. And slavery. And Democrats are refusing to fight it. Back in January, members of Congress used the Super Bowl to help draw attention to one of the more commonly-known ventures associated with human trafficking---prostitution. Members of the House majority used examples of how organized crime rings import men, women, and children into event hubs (like Phoenix) and sell sex in exchange for tourist dollars. The House sent a dozen bills to the Senate, all with the goal of improving law enforcement's ability to fight human trafficking, and making sure victims get the help and care that they need to come back from the abuse they suffer. The Senate introduced its own bill, called the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. Sponsored by Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX), the JVTA has similar goals to the House bills described above, and passed out of the Judiciary Committee in February with unanimous bipartisan support. Now, however, Democrats are attempting to throw the bill away over what they argue are "anti-choice" provisions that use the Hyde Amendment to prevent money placed into a victims' restitution fund from being spent on abortions. That's right---Democrats are throwing modern day slaves under the bus, and playing politics with the lives of abused and abandoned men, women, and children. The kicker? We only need six Democrats to turn their backs on the the gamesmanship and vote in favor of the bill.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 16, 2015 13 Comments
Last week, Senator Tom Cotton and 46 other Republican Senators penned an open letter to Iranian leaders, reiterating Congress's constitutionally-guaranteed roll in negotiations with foreign powers. Democrats responded by mounting their high horses and leading the charge against the '47 Traitors.' But that was last week. A peek behind the curtain of political theatre reveals a different play altogether. Yesterday, Burgess Everett of Politico reported that a dozen Senate Democrats are prepared to support legislation that could undermine the President's Iran deal. Although, the Democrats responding to Politico wanted to make clear that THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE GOP's LETTER TO IRAN. In a fabulous turn of events that could only transpire within the D.C. Beltway, that whole '47 Traitor' thing was revealed as nothing more than a political play; an opportunity for the administration to take bipartisan support for Congressional power and drive a wedge between Democrats and Republicans. President Obama's "don't you know who I am?!" gig wasn't a total loss though. Senate Republicans served up a chance for the President to spike the ball firmly within partisan territory. While the public relations front was a loss for Senate Republicans (just Google 'senate' and 'Iran' and enjoy the numerous headlines painting Senate Republicans as veritable Benedict Arnold doppelgangers), what comes next will likely be an even greater embarrassment for President Obama than any letter. Obama's Congressional sidestep is at risk of being shoved back in line by 'traitors' and a bevy of Democrats who agree with them. Political math indicates that 54 Republicans + 12 Democrats = veto proof majority the 60 day Congressional review mandate. As we discussed last week, Congress has little say in the current Iran deal because the Obama administration has opted to negotiate a non-binding agreement. Non-binding agreements hold the same type of power as an executive order. Where Corker's bill becomes a problem for the President is that, “An executive agreement never overrides inconsistent legislation and is incapable of overriding any of the sanctions legislation,” says David Rivkin, a constitutional litigator with Baker Hostetler, LLP who served in the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush Administrations. “A treaty that has been submitted for Senate’s advise and consent and if it’s self-executing could do that,” Armin Rosen of Yahoo News reported last week.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 11, 2015 31 Comments
In October, the New York Times reported President Obama intended to fly solo on Iranian negotiations. "But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it," they reported. Fast forward to Monday, when freshman Senator Tom Cotton kicked a hornet's nest. Joined by 46 Republican Senators, Senator Cotton wrote an open letter to Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The letter was an exposition of the Constitutionally guaranteed Congressional role in international agreements. Most notably, a reminder that international agreements arranged by the President are non-binding until they've received Congressional approval. President Obama responded, accusing participating Senate Republicans of allying themselves with Iranian hardliners, "I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members for Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran. It's an unusual coalition," Obama said Monday ahead of a meeting with European Council President Donald Tusk." Vice President Joe Biden weighed in calling the letter "beneath the dignity of [the Senate,] an institution I revere." And then the Democratic dog pile began. Iran too, responded. Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif called the letter a propaganda ploy and proceeded with a self-righteous lecture on international law:
I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.
Zarif's statement isn't exactly incorrect, but it in no way negates the fact that for any agreement involving the United States to be a binding agreement on the international stage, it must first pass Congressional scrutiny... which is exactly what Senator Cotton and his 46 compadres pointed out. Conversely, any agreement reached without Congressional consent is not legally binding.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 11, 2015 13 Comments
The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act is a good thing. If passed, it would allow law enforcement agencies to expand and improve human trafficking deterrence programs. It would make it possible to protect victims while more efficiently prosecuting those who deal in the modern day slavery industry. It would increase monetary penalties for perpetrators. It would expand the definition of "child abuse" to include the production of child pornography, child trafficking, and the solicitation of children for commercial sex acts. It would direct fees and penalties collected into funds and grants to be used specifically for the benefit of victims of human trafficking and associated sexual violence. It's comprehensive. It's bipartisan. And Senate Democrats are blocking it because it doesn't fund abortion. Via Politico:
The legislation passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in late February without opposition, but Democrats are now balking over language in it that would prohibit money in a restitution fund from being spent on abortions. Aides said Democrats shepherded the bill through committee and to the floor, unaware that abortion language was in the bill written by Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “You can blame it on staff, blame it on whoever you want to blame,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday. “But we didn’t know it was in the bill, and … the bill will not come off this floor as long as that language is in the bill.”
The shame of a nation, ladies and gentlemen.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 06, 2015 25 Comments
Allegations of corruption and scandal have swarmed New Jersey Democratic Senator Menendez for years now. That the DOJ waited until now to pull the trigger is... interesting. Just four days ago, Menendez said he would only support a deal that dismantled Iran's nuclear program, according to NJ.com:
"As long as I have an ounce of fight left in me, as long as I have a vote and a say and a chance to protect the interests of Israel, the region, and the national security interests of the United States, Iran will never have a pathway to a weapon," Menendez said, bringing the delegates to their feet. "It will never threaten Israel or its neighbors, and it will never be in a position to start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Not on my watch." Menendez is one of the most outspoken supporters of increasing sanctions if negotiations fail to curb Iran's nuclear program. The issue has pitted Menendez against President Obama, a fellow Democrat. Obama has threatened to veto new sanctions legislation, saying it would give Iran an excuse to walk away from negotiations and leave a military solution as the only option to prevent the Islamic Republic from developing nuclear weapons.
Though it's worth noting Menendez has a history of supporting AIPAC, and fighting with the White House over the proper course of action on Iran. Today, CNN reports the DOJ is moving forward with criminal corruption charges:
Washington (CNN)The Justice Department is preparing to bring criminal corruption charges against New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat, alleging he used his Senate office to push the business interests of a Democratic donor and friend in exchange for gifts. People briefed on the case say Attorney General Eric Holder has signed off on prosecutors' request to proceed with charges, CNN has learned exclusively. An announcement could come within weeks. Prosecutors are under pressure in part because of the statute of limitation on some of the allegations. The case could pose a high-profile test of the Justice Department's ability to prosecute sitting lawmakers, having already spawned a legal battle over whether key evidence the government has gathered is protected by the Constitution's Speech and Debate clause.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 27, 2015 31 Comments
What a mess this has become. Hell bent on pursuing legislation that would allow for the dissolution of Congressional powers (a.k.a. Obama's Executive immigration overreach), House Democrats refused to pass a short term funding bill for DHS. The bill would've funded DHS through March 19 and prevented an agency shut down. Unless a deal is reached and an appropriations bill is passed by midnight tonight, agency shutdown is imminent. Some 200,000 of DHS's 231,000+ are deemed 'essential' and would remain in place in the event of a shut down (as they did in the shut down of 2013), as NRO noted. Weeks ago, the House passed a DHS appropriations bill that sought to curb Obama's immigration overreach. Since the House bill's passage, Senate Democrats have continually filibustered, thus disallowing any Senate debate on the the House bill. Then, a judge in Texas issued a temporary injunction, preventing implementation of Obama's Executive immigration action; the same executive action Democrats insist on implementing. In an attempt to build a bridge across the impasse, the Senate passed a clean funding bill, creating a separate bill to address the president's Constitutional curb stomp.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 12, 2015 9 Comments
In a 93-5 vote, the Senate voted to confirm Ash Carter as the new Secretary of Defense. Carter will replace Chuck Hagel who was fired resigned in November of last year. Hagel took his licks as President Obama's perpetual fall guy, a concern Senator McCain shares for Mr. Carter as well. If you were unable to watch the confirmation hearings, this is a great wrap up: CNN Reports:
The Senate easily confirmed Ashton Carter, a former number two at the Pentagon, to be the new Secretary of Defense. The vote was 93 to 5. He will take the helm at DOD as the United States is immersed in several complex national security challenges across the globe, including the widening military campaign against ISIS.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 11, 2015 13 Comments
Senate Democrats continue to block the Department of Homeland Security funding bill passed by the House. As we've reported, the House DHS appropriations bill is enforcement-heavy and seeks to squash President Obama's executive overreach. Not amused, Speaker Boehner held a press conference and minced no words:
“The House did its job. We won the fight to fund the Department of Homeland Security and to stop the President’s unconstitutional actions. Now, it’s time for the Senate to do their work. You know, in the gift shop out here [in the Capitol], they’ve got these little booklets on how a bill becomes a law. Alright? The House has done its job. Why don’t you go ask the Senate Democrats when they’re going to get off their ass and do something other than to vote ‘no.’”

Posted by Amy Miller on February 05, 2015 4 Comments
Obstruction from the left? Must be a day ending in -y. For the third time in a row, Senate Democrats have blocked floor debate on a bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security after February 27. The problem? The piece of legislation Republicans are trying to pass contains provisions blocking Obama's 2012 and 2014 amnesty plans from being implemented. Senate Republicans have pushed multiple times for a vote on the controversial House bill, highlighting their commitment both to keeping DHS funded, and preventing executive amnesty from becoming reality. Via CNN:
One reason for the multiple votes is so Senate GOP leaders can showcase for House Republicans that despite their efforts to pass the House bill, it can't get enough Democratic votes to pass in the Senate as long as it carries the immigration provisions. That might force House Republicans to rethink their position on immigration and decide to take that fight up later. "Part of coming to a solution is going to be showing that we're doing our best to fight for the House position," said Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican told reporters on Wednesday after the second vote. It remains unclear how House and Senate Republican leaders will reach a solution that can meet the differing political needs of each chamber. Multiple House Republican members told CNN the focus now is to increase the pressure on the Senate to figure out a way to pass the measure.
Important point: Reid's caucus didn't just vote against this bill---they blocked it from even coming to the floor to be discussed. When it comes to immigration, Democrats don't want to talk about it unless they can guarantee a winning message they can splash across the top of their fundraising e-mails. This makes sense, considering former immigration officials have now come out to blast the amnesty plans as a death sentence for agencies tasked with making sure things run smoothly. Who wouldn't want to force the focus on a radical Republican agenda, as opposed to the impending implosion of progressive immigration policy? This isn't just about getting a vote on a bill; it's about making any progress at all on funding DHS, and rolling back Obama's executive amnesty:
Accessibility by WAH