This past February, NV-03 constituents asked Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) about legislation to raise the minimum wage. They shared their personal experiences, and they presented the facts. Raising the minimum wage can raise nearly 5 million Americans out of poverty while boosting economic growth.
Rep. Heck didn't take kindly to either their stories or their facts.
">
And neither have Senate Republicans (Dean Heller included), as they just filibustered the Senate minimum wage bill.
"Min wage vote fails 54-42. Corker lone R voting aye, Reid votes nay for procedural reasons. AR & MS sens absent"
FYI, Senator Reid had to switch his vote from "Aye" to "Nay" so he can bring it back for another vote. In fact, he tweeted this following the cloture vote.
"Republicans just turned their backs on millions of hardworking Americans who deserve a fair shot. This debate is not over."
A majority of US Senators wanted to #RaiseTheWage. So do most Americans. And even some prominent conservatives have advocated #RaiseTheWage, as it would lessen the need for the public sector to subsidize the private sector's low wages.
So why did Senate Republicans block a #RaiseTheWage vote? Why wouldn't they simply allow a final vote on the bill, especially when a number of their party's "leaders" have claimed interest in "solving our poverty crisis". How can we "solve the poverty crisis" when we expect so many Americans to work for so little?
G-O-TEA media spinners are already claiming this was just a "political stunt" meant to "pamper teenagers". What they refuse to acknowledge is that most minimum wage jobs are not filled by "pampered teenagers". In fact, they're mostly filled by grown women. And 26% of the people who would benefit from a higher minimum wage have children.
Keep this in mind when you hear Senator Heller, Rep. Heck, and other G-O-TEA politicians try to spin away their opposition to #RaiseTheWage. They're denying millions of American men, women, and children the opportunity to work their way out of poverty. They're denying our economy the kind of consumer buying power that's necessary for sturdier & more robust economic growth. And they're denying our nation the opportunity to start solving the inequality crisis that's defined our time.
America is in dire need of a raise. Why can't we just have it already?
It's not everyday when we see a bunch of US Senators staying up all night. In the US Capitol. Giving speeches. However, that's what we saw last night on Capitol Hill.
Why? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) explained quite well last night. Something's happening. It's called climate change, and we ignore it at our own peril.
On the other hand, there are plenty of opportunities ahead if we simply invest in our cleaner & greener renewable energy future. Even as fossil fuels become costlier to extract and use, renewables are more affordable and within reach than ever before. So why wait any longer to transition to a cleaner future?
We've seen firsthand the dangers of waiting. That's why Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-California) urged her colleagues on Capitol Hill to stop waiting and start acting.
Contrary to the claims of some G-O-TEA politicians, climate change presents a clear & present danger... If we don't act soon. But that's just it: We can act soon. We can start now, and we can start with some very simple steps, like investing in cleaner energy & better utilizing the energy we already have.
This is why Senator Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico) spoke up last night. He urged his colleagues to stop debating known science and start working on real solutions.
While President Obama has already taken some executive action, it's not enough. Congress must become a partner in action if we're serious about taking climate change head on. That's why these Senators stayed #Up4Climate last night. And that's why this shouldn't be the end of it.
So it's happening. Nuclear warfare has erupted... But it's not in the Middle East. Rather, it's happening on Capitol Hill.
Remember the many fights that became slow, tortuous death matches once a filibuster was invoked and sustained? Even more of them have been occurring in the US Senate in recent days, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Patience) has finally had it.
Today, Senator Reid took to the Senate floor to announce what many progressives have been demanding for nearly 5 years.
As we've discussed before, Senator Reid has always been committed to preserving Senate tradition. That's why he had originally been so hesitant to radically alter the filibuster. And even when he was becoming increasingly frustrated by epic G-O-TEA obstruction, he didn't (yet) have enough Democratic Senators on board for major filibuster reform.
Back in July, Senator Reid brokered a deal with Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and a few other (not extreme) Senate Republicans to allow for more executive and judicial confirmations. That was supposed to ease the epic gridlock of the upper chamber of Congress. And while it did for a few days, Senate Republican "leaders" simply whipped their caucus back into epic obstruction shortly after that fleeting, temporary breakthrough.
This is how Senator Reid and 51 other Senate Democrats finally reached their breaking point. And the numerous executive and judicial vacancies (due to the G-O-TEA filibusters) explain why. This is not how government is supposed to work. And at some point, something had to change.
And it now has. The breaking point has finally arrived. And after the long wait, Congress can finally become a bit more functional (well, at least the upper branch).
Just moments ago, Senator Reid just let slip his plans to file cloture on something long awaited (and long overdue).
Reid is likely to file a cloture petition on the bill this evening, a Democratic leadership aide told BuzzFeed Thursday, which would set a vote on the motion to proceed on debate of ENDA for Monday evening.
If the motion to proceed, which requires 60 votes, is agreed to, the Senate would debate and eventually vote on the bill. The vote would be the first Senate vote on the legislation since 1996 and the first vote ever on the legislation with both sexual orientation and gender identity protections.
Advocates say that they have clear support from 59 senators, including all 55 Democrats in the Senate and four Republicans, with a handful of other Republican senators as potential yes votes.
"We're one step closer to making America far more equal. ENDA is about common-sense workplace protections for LGBT Americans that 80 percent of Americans believe already exist. There's only upside to this issue," Human Rights Campaign vice president of communications Fred Sainz told BuzzFeed.
Oh, yes. That's right. ENDA is finally reaching the Senate floor.
At this point, Senator Reid is confident he has the votes for ENDA in the Senate. After all, all of his Senate Democrats support the bill. And on top of that, several Senate Republicans have either announced their support for ENDA or are open to voting for the final bill. Even Senator Dean Heller (R-????) is sounding like his vote is in play.
Why? Remember, we covered that on Tuesday. And that probably guarantees a sizable number of Senate Republican "Nay" votes... And tougher times ahead when it reaches the (G-O-TEA Mad) House.
But for now, major progress is being made in the Senate. And Senator Reid has taken ENDA further than it's ever gone before on Capitol Hill. That at least keeps hope alive that wrongful workplace discrimination will one day be a thing of the past.
On Monday, we looked at the prospect of Congress doing something productive for a change. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) vowed a Senate floor vote on ENDA (the Employment Nondiscrimination Act) next month. And today, he's a few steps closer to that goal.
ENDA already had 53 cosponsors going into this week. But now, that number is up to 54 as Senator Bill Nelson (D-Florida) signed onto the bill. And on top of that, ENDA will gain another cosponsor as soon as Senator-elect Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) is sworn in.
In addition, more Senators have announced support for ENDA or at least openness to considering it. The two remaining Democratic holdouts, Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), recently announced their support. And Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) just said he's "inclined to support" ENDA. And that's not all.
The Washington Post suggests several other Republicans who have previously supported LGBT rights, including Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Dean Heller (R-NV), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). Though Flake previously supported ENDA in 2007, he now believes the latest version “will increase the potential for litigation and compliance costs.” This belief contradicts ample evidence showing that businesses of all sizesbenefit from nondiscrimination protections. Flake told the Washington Blade that he also opposes the inclusion of transgender protections, which had been stripped from the 2007 House bill he voted for.
One Senator who it seems will not be voting for ENDA is John McCain (R-AZ). Despite lobbying from his own wife, McCain seems to still be concernedabout “whether it imposes quota, whether it has reverse discrimination, whether it has the kinds of provisions that really preserve equal rights for all citizens.” He went on to draw an odd comparison between ENDA and thedesegregation busing that attempted to break down racial lines after schools were integrated.
Despite McCain’s claims, the bill expressly prohibits preferential treatment, quotas, or any kind of retaliation against people who oppose its provisions. It’s quite unclear who would be bused where if LGBT people were simply protected in the jobs they already have.
Sadly, it's not all good news. Many Republicans remain strongly opposed to workplace equality. Never mind the evidence showing workplace discrimination to be an economic loser, the usual G-O-TEA suspects just can't let go of their H8.
Why is this? As we discussed yesterday, far too many Republicans are following the lead of the 21st Century Know Nothings. And in a column for The Hill, Marge Baker explained just how far they're going to try to kill ENDA.
Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber said earlier this month that ENDA would be used to protect child predators. Former Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt warned last month that if ENDA passes, Christians could face bankruptcy or even starvation. American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer has shared his outrageous – not to mention bizarre – belief that “ENDA would represent the return of Jim Crow laws.” And Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver may have taken the cake with his prediction that ENDA could result in the “death of some individuals.”
That’s quite a frenzy over a law that would simply protect LGBT Americans from workplace discrimination. And as more and more conservative Americans embrace workplace protections for all, these far-right voices get even fringier.
But some in the GOP are resisting these far-right voices and standing up for decency. This summer three Republican senatorsjoined their Democratic counterparts in a bipartisan vote that moved ENDA out of committee. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski put it simply: “No discrimination against anyone at any time — it's pretty basic.”
It is pretty basic. And since the Senate is expected to vote on ENDA before Thanksgiving, it’s time for senators to ask themselves whether they are going to stand on the side of fringe extremists spouting wild predictions and warning that the sky is falling or on the side of basic fairness and common sense.
We can only wonder if Senator Heller is asking himself this. Perhaps he is, considering that he's not slamming the door on ENDA (just yet?).
It is pretty basic. This is about ensuring equal treatment under the law for all American workers. No really, that's all.
While it's frustrating that it's taken this long for ENDA to near 60 Senate votes for passage, at least we're finally approaching it now. The only question is if more in Congress (including those Republicans on the House side) can recognize something so basic.
It looks like the rude comments continue to flow from G-O-TEA land. At least this means Jim Wheeler doesn't have to be alone.
So what has the pundits aghast now? Oh, it's just another Republican who's ungrateful over Senator Harry Reid (D) offering their party a political life preserver at their time of need. Of course, this was also when Republicans were threatening to drown America to death, so Senator Reid was also able to stop an unnecessary catastrophe just in the nick of time.
So what did Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) say? Get a load of this.
For his part, Coburn had some choice words for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. [...]
"There's no comity with Harry Reid. I think he's an absolute a--hole," he said.
How pleasant. And it's so fitting considering Senator Coburn is a "strong defender of moralvalues."
Of course, Senator Coburn tried to cover his @ss equivocate by saying he has "great relationships with other Democrats"... Just not the Senate Democratic Leader who recently reached out to the Senate Republican Leader to end the latest and greatest manufactured crisis that Republicans like Tom Coburn were cheering for. Wow, that makes plenty of sense. (/not)
So Senator Coburn should not have been surprised by Senator Reid's office's response.
"Nothing says 'comity' like childish playground name-calling, especially from a senator who has not sponsored a single piece of successful bipartisan legislation during his entire Senate career," Reid's spokesman Adam Jentleson told the Hill. [...]
Coburn would reportedly like to meet with Reid, but Reid's office has not yet received an invitation, according to the Hill.
"Since this is the second time in the last year or so Senator Coburn has had to apologize to Senator Reid, he knows where to find him," Jentleson told the Hill.
Coburn also called Reid "incompetent" in July 2012.
So what is Senate Coburn's definition of "comity"? Is it this? Might it be this? Or does have no grasp of the actual meaning of the word?
This month, Congressional Republicans dug themselves and their entire party into a rather deep hole by forcing an unnecessary manufactured crisis. Here's some helpful advice for Senator Coburn and the rest of the G-O-TEA: Stop digging!
The Senate just voted on cloture for the Reid-McConnell deal to reopen the federal government and pay the nation's bills. It's now clear that the bill has broad, bipartisan support. Yet despite this and despite the need to avoid a disastrous debt default, Senator Dean Heller (R) voted to filibuster the bill to end the manufactured crisis.
Funny enough, it's about to pass anyway. And Senator Heller must have known it was going to pass. And he voted against it anyway? Whatever happened to his "fiscal responsibility"?
5:00 PM UPDATE:
The first procedural vote (for cloture) on the bill to reopen the federal government passed 83 to 16. Obviously, Senator Harry Reid (D) voted for his own bill. So did all the other Democrats. Even most of the Republicans joined him and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) to end the filibuster so this bill can pass (and the government can reopen).
However, Senator Heller joined a handful of hard-core G-O-TEA Senators against paying the nation's bills and reopening the government. What point was he trying to make?
Whatever the case, it doesn't matter. The bill is easily passing without him. Is Senator Heller trying to look irrelevant?
5:10 PM UPDATE:
Senator Heller also voted against final passage of his home state colleague's hugely bipartisan bill to reopen the federal government and pay the nation's bills. It doesn't matter in terms of the whip count, as it has more than enough support to pass. Senator Heller is just using this as an opportunity to pledge allegiance to the 21st Century Know Nothings.
Sad...
(And by the way, it passed 81-18 and is now heading to the House.)
Yesterday, news broke of Senator Harry Reid (D) preparing to change filibuster rules if President Obama's executive nominations remain indefinitely blocked. The entire Senate held a private caucus last night to try to reach some sort of last minute deal. While Senator Reid rejected Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Kentucky) "offer" of some confirmations in exchange for unilateral disarmament, Senator Reid is now looking to other Reoublicans to reach a possible solution.
It remains possible the nuclear option will be avoided this time around as a group of Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), are easing up on the stalled nominees. As Reid sees it, he’s calling the shots over McConnell.
“We’re fighting for the principle that executive nominees should get up-or-down votes,” the senior Democratic aide said. “If Republicans will give us that, there’s a chance we won’t go nuclear, but we will maintain the ability to go nuclear if they start filibustering nominees again.”
Sen. John Thune (R-SD) all but admitted that Richard Cordray had the votes to be confirmed to the CFPB. The remaining discussions are about confirming the two NLRB picks — Sharon Block and Richard Griffin. If they go through, Reid will have no incentive to go nuclear this time around, but people close to him say he refuses to give up his right to do what’s needed to make sure the Senate functions in the future.
“This would also be a rebuke to McConnell from his caucus,” the aide continued, “since the group [of Republicans] we’re talking with is so sick of the obstruction themselves that they’re basically willing to give us everything we’re asking for with no conditions on future action.”
In recent years, Senator Reid has tried several workarounds to try to move legislation in the Senate. While this has resulted in a few legislative victories, Senate gridlock has nonetheless hit an all time high. And Senator Reid seems to be ready to start changing this.
As of now, the votes are still on. The first test vote will happen around 11 ET this morning for Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Board. If he gets more than 60 votes, which is likely, then there will be eight hours of "debate" on his nomination. Republicans could choose to give their time back and not use up the eight hours, but that's highly unlikely. Negotiations on the remaining nominees will continue. The next two up are the key to the current impasse, the National Labor Relations Board nominees.
Republicans have essentially relented on all of the nominees except the two NLRB picks, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin. They want substitute choices for those nominees, reportedly any two new nominees of President Obama's choice. What that gives the Republicans is the continued dysfunctional NLRB. The deadline for confirmation on these appointments is August 27. Two new candidates would have to be vetted, passed through committee and brought to the floor in record time, all before the Senate goes into its August recess beginning August 5. That's essentially impossible.
Now, it's just a matter of whether Senate Republicans are finally willing to let President Obama govern. Will they do it? Or will they force Senator Reid to finally "go nuclear" to get something done?
It may ultimately come down to the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that oversees labor practices. Senate Republicans have been indefinitely blocking President Obama's choices for NLRB. And so far, Senator Reid continues to insist their confirmations are the final keys to diffusing this filibuster showdown. So are Senate Republicans willing to deal?
8:15 AM UPDATE:
And a deal has been reached. TPM has more details.
In short, Republicans would confirm nominees to all seven positions, a big concession for the GOP. But in a concession for Democrats, they would replace two recess-appointed nominees to the National Labor Relations Board — Sharon Block and Richard Griffin — with new nominees under the following condition: Republicans pledge to confirm any two replacements by President Obama to the board by Aug. 27.
The deal, outlined by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) office, also ensures that Reid retains his right to revert to the nuclear option in the future to change filibuster rules by a simple majority vote.
So President Obama will have to pick two new NLRB nominees. Then, all the vacancies will be confirmed and filled. So I guess this means crisis averted.
Of course, this also means major reform is also averted. But at least this time, Senator Reid has something to show for it.
Every so often, we're reminded of the epic dysfunction of the 113th Congress. If it's not another outburst of insani-TEA in the House, it's the struggle to accomplish anything in the Senate. That's largely thanks to the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster by the G-O-TEA clan there.
Until very recently, US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) was very hesitant to radically alter Senate rules. But now that he's having to admit the Senate is broken, he may finally be ready to push for new rules.
“This is a moment in history where circumstances dictate the need for change,” Mr. Reid, the majority leader, said in a speech at the liberal Center for American Progress. He suggested that there was only one way for Republicans to avoid the rules change: give Democrats a straight up-or-down vote on all seven of President Obama’s nominations that are in question and stop filibustering executive nominations going forward.“
I love the Senate, but right now the Senate is broken and needs to be fixed,” he said.
Senator Reid is giving the entire body one last chance to hammer out an agreement on President Obama's executive appointments tonight. If this is not successful, then Senator Reid will push for a rule change on executive appointments tomorrow. He has already said he has 51 votes for this rule change.
Even this is not a major change. Filibusters on legislation and judicial nominations will continue. Clearly, change does not come easily to the US Senate.
Still, something must be done. As of now, there is no permanent Labor Secretary or EPA Administrator. And on top of this, many more executive branch positions are vacant. And another high profile vacancy is happening is Janet Napolitano is stepping down as Homeland Security Director.
This is just no way for the country to function. Something must change. And now, finally, Senator Reid feels ready to pursue that change. This won't instantly solve all Congress' woes, but someone must start somewhere.
Its key tradeoff is a plan to send thousands of agents to the U.S.-Mexico border while simultaneously placing millions of current immigrants on a pathway to citizenship. But it also creates a highly regulated guest worker program, and a high-skilled worker visa program, and strict rules governing how immigrants already in the country can turn the promise of citizenship into reality.
But the House isn’t poised to pass anything similar, let alone adopt the Senate bill full stop. On Thursday, [House Speaker John] Boehner [R-Ohio] reiterated, and expanded, a standard for passing immigration reform legislation that will result in either a narrower, more conservative bill than Boehner outlined in November or no bill at all.
“The House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes,” he told reporters. “We’re going to do our own bill through regular order, and there’ll be legislation that reflects the will of our majority and the will of the American people. For any legislation, including a conference report, to pass the house, it’s going to have to be a bill that has the support of a majority of our members.”
Far from making progress toward a “comprehensive” bill, Boehner boasted of piecemeal efforts underway in standing committees of the House. “Chairman McCaul’s done a good job passing a border security bill, Chairman Goodlatte’s doing good work in the Judiciary Committee.”
If House Republicans can ultimately reach negotiations with the Senate, it will require real movement on their part to agree to anything resembling comprehensive reform that also has the support of a majority of their conference.
Ultimately, Senator Dean Heller (R-46%) voted for S 744, along with 13 other Senate Republicans. So there's that. However, it's still no guarantee for securing the support of Reps. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) and/or Mark Amodei (R-Carson City).
And right now, it looks like both of them are still hiding behind House G-O-TEA leaders' intransigence on cooperating on CIR. Even now, even as the Senate just easily passed a CIR bill, they still won't budge. Already, a key Gang of 8 Republican (and 2008 GOP Presidential Nominee) is begging his House colleagues to reconsider their knee-jerk opposition to reform.
TPM also asked [Senator John] McCain [R-Arizona] if he believes it’s important for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who has all but rejected the Senate immigration bill, to stand by his principle that any legislation must have the support of a majority of House Republicans in order to come to a vote.
“I can’t tell the Speaker what to do,” he said. “I trust him and he’s a friend of mine and I have great confidence in his leadership.”
McCain responded to claims by the National Republican Senatorial Committee that it plans to campaign against some Democrats over their immigration reform votes.
“All I can say is that maybe they ought to look back at what happened in 2012 and 2008 with the Hispanic voters and then maybe they ought to reevaluate what they are saying,” he said. “There’s plenty of issues that separate Republicans and Democrats but … 70, 80 percent, depending on which polls you judge by, are in favor of what we’re trying to do.”
Last week, we observed the mounting "tea party" campaign to kill comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) legislation in Congress by invoking the Boston Marathon Attack. Never mind that Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev were granted legal asylum, and ultimately citizenship. At the very least, CIR would not have expedited the Tsarnaev brothers' plot. If anything, it may have given law enforcement more tools to prevent this tragedy!
However, that didn't stop Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) from continuing to peddle wildly inaccurate "tea party" conspiracy theories. Yet oddly enough, he also denied he ever went there! Yes, go ahead and see the madness for yourself. This is from today's Senate CIR hearing.
During a hearing on Friday, Grassley argued that “[g]iven the events of this week, it’s important to understand the gaps and loopholes” in the immigration system. “While we don’t yet know the immigration status of people who terrorized the the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.”
And Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) didn't stop there. He continued calling out both the radical & xenophobia fueled opposition to CIR. He also pointed out the nefarious delay tactics opponents are trying to use to kill the bill.
Perhaps Senator Schumer paid close attention to what Ezra Klein wrote this morning.
“I call Washington ‘the city of the perishable,’” Nancy Pelosi once told me. Anything left out on the floor of Congress too long runs the risk of spoiling.
The conservatives massing to stop immigration reform agree with Pelosi. This push for immigration reform, they hope, is perishable. And as long as it doesn’t come for a vote anytime soon, it can spoil — or be spoiled.
So they’re grasping at anything that can delay it. At Friday’s Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Chuck Grassley spent his entire opening statement emphasizing the need for less speed. “Unfortunately, I think that we’re kind of off to a rough start from the standpoint that the majority is rushing to read and analyze the bill,” he said. One unsavory reason he gave for slowing down the bill: “While we don’t yet know the immigration status of people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.”
Seeing the danger of tying the Boston bombers to the proposal, Sen. Lindsey Graham replied from the Sunday shows. “What happened in Boston and international terrorism I think should urge us to act quicker, not slower,” he said on CNN, arguing that passing the bill would mean strengthening border security and better tracking who is actually here. Sen. Marco Rubio’s office also harshly rebutted Grassley’s comments.
The other advantage of slowing the bill down is that it creates an opening to oppose the law — or at least its progress — without opposing the law itself. It could even allow some senators to have it both ways. A key dynamic to watch as reform grinds on is where Rubio falls on the calls to endlessly lengthen the schedule. If, as conservative opposition mounts, he joins with those who want a slower process, he could help the anti-immigration forces on their key tactical priorities for killing immigration reform even as he publicly supports the bill itself.
Even if the law passes the Senate, it will be mired in the House. “The bill will be immediately sent to the committees, and then either sent back to the Senate with changes, or rewritten in a bicameral conference committee,” reports Robert Costa. “That tweaking process could take months, which is just fine with many Republicans, who’d like the public to have as much time as possible to chew over the controversial elements of Obama’s prized bills. The caucus consensus is: The more time Congress takes to consider a bill, the more time the public has to sour on its components.”
They know this is their best path, and perhaps their only available path, to kill CIR in Congress. Just stretch out the process and find more excuses to delay even further. And then, just hope that the process becomes so toxic that bill can no longer survive.
They have to do this because their arguments have no basis in reality. As mentioned above, the "TERRORISM!!!" panic is completely illogical. And the economic case doesn't make sense, either. Former Commerce Secretary (under President George W. Bush) Carlos Gutierrez recently refuted this.
And this is backed up by actual data. CIR can actually help American born workers along with immigrant workers. And overall, CIR stands to help the American economy build and maintain a competitive advantage. Just watch out when trying to explain this to the "tea party".
But really, they don't care about the (lack of) veracity of their argument. They're now just flinging crap to the walls of Congress and hoping enough sticks to kill the bill. That's why the increasingly infamous Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) just wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Searchlight, Don't Forget It) demanding CIR "address national security concerns". (Never mind that it already does & probably does so in a more effective way than what Rand Paul wants!) So of course, this quickly led to fellow 2016 Presidential Candidate Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida), himself a Gang of 8 member (??!!), promising to address "flaws in our immigration system that were exposed by the attack."
And in case this latest outbreak of "tea party" madness isn't enough, expect even more. They're continuing to attack Marco Rubio for even joining the Gang of 8, and they now have these lovely buttons to display their opposition to CIR in a very special way. In addition, RedState.com co-founder and particularly loud "tea party" pundit Erick Erikson declared, "Count me out!" (of the Gang of 8 CIR compromise).
What's so disgustingly funny about this is that the virulent "tea party" opposition to the Gang of 8 CIR bill might lead some to believe their bill is so "wildly & radically progressive". But really, it isn't. In fact, their bill appropriates even more federal funds for even more militarization of the US-Mexico Border while subjecting undocumented immigrants to a 13 year path to citizenship! Oh, and the bill (as is) fails to address the plight of LGBTQ families. That's what led a former Republican Member of Congress to speak out today.
"I know, as the partner of an immigrant how difficult it can be to build a life and protect the system under the current system," he said. "While this is an excellent starting point, I submit to you it is still incomplete. Families like mine are left behind as part of the proposal."
Immigrant and gay rights groups were disappointed last week when the "Gang of 8's" bipartisan immigration bill did not include measures allowing Americans to bring same-sex partners or spouses from abroad on family visas. Because of the Defense Of Marriage Act, now under review by the Supreme Court, the federal government is barred from recognizing gay marriages for immigration purposes, forcing many families into effective exile abroad.
"My partner was born in Panama and came to the United States on a scholarship to pursue [a graduate degree] in special education," [Former Rep. Jim] Kolbe [R-Arizona], who was outed in 1996 after voting in favor of DOMA, said. "He has been a dedicated teacher for almost two decades. He was...was forced to turn to Panama when his visa expired. The separation was painful."
Kolbe and his fiance are planning to marry in DC next month. It just took an incredibly long and expensive visa process to get them there. And as of now, the Gang of 8 bill does nothing to fix this. President Obama has endorsed inclusion of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) in CIR legislation, and at least a few Senators have expressed interest in adding UAFA to the Gang of 8 bill as an amendment.
The Gang of 8 bill truly is a compromise. It includes some priorities that progressives care about, along with priorities that conservatives care about. And it addresses a long standing problem that needs to be solved... Well, a decade ago.
But again, even this is just too much for the G-O-TEA. So they're pulling out all the stops to kill the bill. And now, we're left (again) to see which way Senator Dean Heller (R-TEA Curious) is blowing to determine the fate of immigration reform. It may ultimately depend on how much "TEA" Heller decides to drink.
Well, it happened. As expected, gun safety reform died in Congress today. Despite the best efforts of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Searchlight Strong), and despite even a handful of conservative Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans supporting a compromise amendment to Reid's bill, enough Republicans (along with a handful of super-conservative Blue Dog Democrats) stood together to sustain a filibuster. Not even that compromise amendment could get an up-or-down vote today. Steve Benen has more on today's EPIC FAIL in Congress.
Almost exactly four months after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, the Senate took up a bipartisan compromise on firearm background checks -- the heart of the larger effort to reduce gun violence. It was a watered-down compromise written by two conservative senators, but it enjoyed the support of a majority of the Senate and the overwhelming support of the American public.
And yet, this afternoon, it died at the hands of a Republican filibuster anyway.
As the dust settled, a 54-member majority supported the Manchin/Toomey amendment, while 46 opposed it. Because of Republican obstructionist tactics, proponents needed a 60-vote supermajority and came up far short. (Technically, it would have been 55-45, but Majority Leader Harry Reid had to switch his vote for procedural reasons.)
A woman in the Senate gallery shouted "shame on you" at the members below, but she, like the Newtown families, Gabrielle Giffords, and 90% of the country were ignored. [...]
Think about this: everything was in place for success. This one simple idea -- close the gun-show loophole and apply background checks to online sales -- had all of the pieces lined up in its favor. The White House invested considerable energy in giving the proposal the best possible chance to prevail; the American mainstream strongly endorsed it; the memory of national tragedy still weighed heavily on everyone's minds; and the only meaningful organization lobbying against it has become a national laughingstock.
"If our democracy is working the way it's supposed to," the bipartisan compromise should have passed while barely breaking a sweat.
Is it not time, then, to look anew at whether our democracy has stopped working the way it's supposed to?
Ouch. He's so harsh... Yet so accurate.
And this takes us back to an issue that's been simmering since last fall. Since November, progressives have been clamoring for filibuster reform. Yet because Senator Reid was concerned about "rocking the boat" too much and threatening the collegial reputation of the US Senate, Senator Reid initially hesitated to push all that hard on filibuster reform. He settled on a "gentlemen's agreement" with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) to allow for a few minor tweaks to the filibuster.
That was supposed to solve matters. But instead, it's only resulted in even more G-O-TEA obstructionism. Cabinet nominations have been delayed. Judicial nominations have been stalled. And yes, bills with well over 80% public support have been killed without even a proper vote.
Moments ago, several gun violence victims joined President Obama just outside The White House to denounce this EPIC FAIL.
He expressed his outrage, and so did the victims. In fact, one Newtown dad vowed to press on.
"What happened in Newtown can happen anywhere. In any instant, any dad in America could be in my shoes. No one should feel the pain. No one should feel our pain or the pain felt by the tens of thousands of people who have lost loved ones to senseless gun violence," [Mark] Barden said. "That's why we're here. Two weeks ago, twelve of us from Newtown came to meet with U.S. denators and have a conversation about how to bring common-sense solutions to the issues of gun violence. ... We met with dozens of Democrats and Republicans and shared with them pictures of our children, spouses, parents who lost their lives on December 14. Expanded background checks wouldn't have saved our loved ones but, still, we came to support a bipartisan proposal from two senators, both with 'A' ratings from the NRA, a common-sense proposal supported by 90 percent of Americans."
Barden described the background checks bill as "a proposal that will save lives without interfering with the rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners." He thanked the politicians who supported the legislation and vowed he and other relatives of gun violence victims would continue fighting for it.
"We'll return home now disappointed but not defeated. We return home with a determination that change will happen. Maybe not today, but it will happen. It will happen soon. We've always known this would be a long road and we don't have the luxury of turning back. We will keep moving forward and build public support for common sense solutions in the areas of mental health, school safety, and gun safety," said Barden. "We take strength from the children and loved ones that we lost and we carry a great faith in the American people. ... Every day as more people are killed in this country because of gun violence our determination grows stronger."
Mark Barden lost his 7 year old son in the Newtown Massacre. And he doesn't want to see any more children die just so gun manufacturers can pad their profit margins even more. He was joined by Gabrielle Giffords, herself a surviving victim of the Tucson Massacre. And they were not alone out there.
In fact, there's a broad consensus among the American people for gun safety reform. Yet because gun industry lobbyists were able to bribe convince just enough Senators to abuse the arcane and antiquated rules of the institution, even the most modest compromises of reform were killed in Congress today. Something must change. And today is only the beginning of that change.
As we discussed earlier today, Senator Reid did what he could to advance this bill and the cause. But ultimately, he must realize that the arcane and antiquated Senate rules (i.e. the filibuster) only helped opponents in killing reform. And the Senators who hid behind those very arcane and antiquated Senate rules (i.e. the filibuster) should be ashamed of themselves for misusing Senate rules to please their gun lobby sugar daddies benefactors while ignoring the many lives lost to senseless gun violence.
Something must change. And today is only the beginning of that change. We can't forget what happened today, but what happened today doesn't have to last forever.
Last month, a number of progressives were furious at Senator Harry Reid (D-Still Searchlight) for leaving the Assault Weapons Ban out of his initial gun safety bill. Many were asking why Senator Reid would "pre-compromise" and water down the bill so quickly. Yesterday, they got their answer when Senator Dean Heller (R-46%) announced not just his intention to vote against Senator Reid's bill, but even the Manchin-Toomey Amendment that would further weaken the bill by limiting its provision on expanding background checks for gun purchases.
Earlier today, Senator Reid delivered a powerful speech on gun safety reform on the Senate floor. He expressed sorrow over the likely demise of his bill. He mourned the lives recently lost to gun violence. And he even made a shocking surprise announcement.
Reid —a moderate Democrat who has a ‘B’ rating from the National Rifle Association —tore into conspiracy theorists who use “shameful scare tactics” to claim that requiring more gun buyers to undergo screenings would lead to the creation of a national gun registry. He argued that the amendment offered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) specifically outlaws a registry “on page 27″ and would strengthen existing prohibitions against federal officials who store the names of gun owners.
“The courage today is to say yes,” Reid said, as he called on his fellow senators to vote their conscience:
"Today our decision will determine the decision of our country. Today I choose to vote my conscience, not only is Harry Reid a United States senator but also a a husband, a father, a grandfather and I hope friend of lots and lots of people, I choose to vote my conscience because, if tragedy strikes again, I’m sorry to say, Mr. President, it will, if innocents are gunned down in a classroom, theater or restaurant, I would have trouble living with myself as a senator, as a husband, a fathers, or grandfather and friend, knowing that I didn’t do everything in my power to prevent that incident." [...]
Reid also announced his support for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) assault weapons bill, noting that “maintaining law and order is more important than satisfying the conspiracy theorists who believe in black helicopters and false flags.” He made a similar case for Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) high capacity magazine amendment and pointed out that hunters don’t need 30 rounds, as they are already limited in how they can target animals. “Don’t people deserve as much protection as birds?” he asked.
Earlier today, Manchin told reporters that his background check amendment is unlikely to attract the 60 votes it needs for passage and accused the National Rifle Association of spreading misinformation.
The last time the Assault Weapons Ban had a vote on the Senate floor (in 2004), Senator Reid opposed it. He also opposed the original version in the 1994 Crime Bill. So today marks a major change of heart for Senator Reid.
And yes, that's what it is. I've already been seeing accusations of this being some cold, calculated game of charades. Sorry, but I must call bullshit on that.
And I must explain why. Senator Reid has faced harrowing incidents of gun violence in his own life. Yet because of his family's and Nevada's overall storied gun culture, it's been difficult for him to break too far from the NRA.
That began to change in recent months. Senator Reid hasn't forgotten the NRA's refusal to endorse him in 2010. He's witnessed their bizarre, outlandish, and increasingly belligerent reactions to calls for even modest gun safety reform measures. And perhaps most notably, he's been bearing the brunt of their scorched earth campaign to kill a compromise of a compromise. And today, he's witnessing the innocent victims of the Newtown massacre watch in horror & disgust as Congress looks increasingly set to follow the NRA's marching orders & kill this compromise of a compromise.
The “gun rights” forces like to make several arguments about the involvement of the families in this drama. Some like to say it constitutes “emotional bullying” or “using the families” when gun control advocates cite their desires. Rand Paul today accused the Obama administration of using the Newtown families as “props.”
The problem with this, of course, is that these families are doing all of this of their own accord, and if they want to channel their grief into lobbying for gun reform, that’s their right. As for those gun control advocates who cite the family’s desires, the families share the same policy goal as they do,so why shouldn’t they?
Others like to say that the Manchin-Toomey proposal “wouldn’t have done anything to stop Newtown.” But that elides the obvious point that the families are lobbying on this issue because they are hoping to prevent other shootings of innocent people later,in hopes of sparing other families from getting torn apart they way their families have. “I’m not just here for the 26 that died at Sandy Hook,” Nicole Hockley said recently. “If we can make any steps forward to help save lives, then it’s a step worth taking.”
Many Senators stood and applauded when Obama, during his State of the Union Speech, intoned again and again that the Newtown families “deserve a vote.” But it’s not emotional manipulation to refer back to that moment; the families are actually in the Capitol asking for a simple majority vote. They could have gotten one. Senators who will vote No today had the option of voting Yes on the Toomey-Manchin amendment, which requires 60 votes, and then voting No during the simple majority vote on the final package of proposals. These Senators could have justified this by saying they believe Toomey-Manchin deserved a straight up or down vote and shouldn’t be killed by a supermajority requirement.
But these Senators apparently don’t believe this. We’re now learning that a number of them —red state Democrats and purple state Republicans alike —who genuinely seemed undecided on the proposal can’t bring themselves to allow such an up or down vote on it. As the families themselves will witness in person today, a simple majority vote in the United States Senate on expanding background checks —which is supported by over eight in 10 Americans –is apparently not going to happen.
I wholeheartedly believe all of this has been weighing on Senator Harry Reid. And as a result, Reid himself has had a dramatic change of heart on gun safety reform. And Senator Reid may not be alone.
That was Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) expressing shock and horror over his amendment, one that's meant to weaken Senator Reid's background checks provision and essentially written by other gun industry lobbyists, suddenly being put to death in the Senate. How could something as milquetoast and broadly accepted as his amendments go down in flames like this?
Earlier today, Joan Walsh noted just how much of a milestone today has been.
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin had an A rating from the NRA, winning the endorsement of its PAC for his staunch defense of gun rights (and opposition to even sensible gun regulations.) He made national headlines during his 2010 campaign with an ad that featured him shooting a copy of a cap and trade bill with a rifle, proving with one unforgettable image that he loved guns and hated energy regulation.
So it was big news when he decided to hook up with Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on compromise gun control legislation expanding background checks and closing the so-called gun-show loophole. When Manchin announced that he was working on such measures, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent said it represented “real movement in the right direction” and might even “give cover to all of the other red state Democrats who are skittish about embracing this common sense step.” Sargent was also encouraged that the NRA darling said he was discussing the measures with the NRA.
But two months later,with a vote on the Manchin-Toomey measures set for Wednesday afternoon, the senator’s work is expected to end in defeat. He admitted as much to NBC News today, and on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” he even accused his former political patrons, the NRA, of lying about his legislation. The NRA is claiming that the amendment would “criminalize the private transfer of firearms by private citizens,” Manchin noted, complaining “It is a lie.” The senator pointed out that his measure exempts sales between private individuals from the screening requirement. [...]
[NRA Chief Agent Provocateur Wayne] LaPierre’s seemingly crazy no-compromise strategy actually worked. As Zeff argues: “By effectively shifting the conversation far to the right, he also shifted rightward what constituted a ‘compromise’ in the gun discussion.” Meanwhile, Zeff notes, many gun control advocates abandoned Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban proposal, which probably never could have been passed, but could have served as a countervailing force to pulling the “compromise” on guns so far to the right. Liberals, by the way, never seem to think that way, preferring to seem “reasonable” from the get-go and to negotiate with themselves.
Still, to look on the bright side, aside from a few stalwarts like the Brady Campaign, the pro-gun control forces had mostly surrendered over the last 10 years. Inspired by Newtown, they engaged with new fervor, and powerful new allies, like deep-pockets Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Tucson massacre survivor Gabby Giffords. Manchin’s “education” by his former NRA friends is the kind of life experience that might bring change. He once believed he was allying with a gun-owners’ lobby; he’s now discovered he was flacking for the gun-manufacturers’ lobby. This experience could change Manchin and other NRA supporters.
Actually, I think it already is. In witnessing both the extreme positions of the NRA and the extreme level of juice the NRA enjoys on Capitol Hill, it's forced many to rethink their loyalty to an organization dedicated to maximizing gun manufacturer's profits at the expense of many Americans' lives. Again, I believe that's what's led to Senator Reid's change of heart. And perhaps there's hope of Senator Manchin and others following along soon.
What's happening in Congress today is simply disgusting. Even with at least some gun safety reform measures attracting majority support, everything may ultimately be filibustered to death anyway. The only "victory" gun safety activists may see this week may be in watching the NRA's lurid poison pill amendments to the bill get filibustered to death as well.
This week may be full of heartbreaking defeat... But it may also be the start of real, positive change. Don't lose sight of the big picture.
Yesterday, we saw an amazing display of cowardice. Despite having the support of 86% of Nevadans, a similar amount of Americans overall, and a whole lot of victims of gun violence, Senator Dean Heller (R-46%) decided to not only oppose legislation to expand background checks on gun purchases, but he also chose to join a filibuster of any and all gun safety measures. So thanks to Heller's fear of a few NRA & "tea party" radicals, we may not even see a vote on the actual legislation this week.
So now, eyes here and in DC are turning to another major issue that's been getting traction in Congress lately. Yesterday, the actual Gang of 8 comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill finally dropped. And yet again, Democratic & Republican Senators are now wondering aloud what Senator Heller will do, especially now that there's an actual bill for him to take a position on.
“There is no question our immigration system is broken and needs reform. I’m encouraged that Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans have continued to work together in a good faith effort to create an immigration process for those wishing to live in this great nation. For far too long, many in Washington have focused on the twenty percent where Democrats and Republicans disagree. I remain optimistic that we are continuing to make progress towards legislation comprised of the 80 percent where both sides of the aisle can come to an agreement.
“As Congress prepares to tackle the difficult challenge of modernizing the current system, every member of Congress must be honest about the need for enforcement measures in any legislation considered on the Senate floor. With Democrats and Republicans coming together and engaging in an open, transparent debate on this issue and allowing for amendments to the existing legislation, I am optimistic we can find solutions and address these issues once and for all. I look forward to reviewing this legislation and continuing this discussion in the coming days and weeks,” said Senator Dean Heller.
Less than 3 months ago, Senator Dean Heller's rhetoric on CIR sounded so promising. However, so was his rhetoric on gun safety. Now, everyone is waiting with baited breath to see some real action from him.
So what's happening? Long story short: The "TEA" tinged (Republican Party) base are howling back in rage over Heller and a few other Republicans playing footsie on issues like gun safety and immigration reform. And yes, we're seeing a mounting "tea party" campaign to kill CIR (again). Yesterday, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) disgustingly tried to (mis)use the Boston Marathon Bombing as an excuse to oppose CIR. And today, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is reinforcing King's irrational and xenophobic case against CIR.
"We know Al Qaeda has camps over with the drug cartels on the other side of the Mexican border," he said Wednesday on C-Span. "We know that people that are now being trained to come in and act like Hispanic [sic] when they are radical Islamists. We know these things are happening. It is just insane not to protect ourselves, to make sure that people come in as most people do ... They want the freedoms we have."
He compared the United States to Israel, and said that the nation might need a border fence in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings. "Finally the Israeli people said, 'You know what? Enough.' They built a fence, and the rest is a wall to prevent snipers from knocking off their kids. They finally stopped the domestic violence from people that wanted to destroy them. I am concerned we might need to do that as well," he said, adding he didn't know whether the attack in Boston was domestic or foreign in origin.
Gohmert has previously asserted that pregnant women were coming to the U.S. to have babies to take advantage of birthright citizenship, where their infants would grow up to be terrorists.
Gohmert's colleague Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said Tuesday that immigration reform might need to be delayed because the suspect in the bombings could have been a foreign on a student visa. In fact, there is thus far no suspect for Monday's bombings.
The Hispanic Leadership Group, a conservative pro-reform immigration group, condemned Gohmert's remark as "unacceptable, offensive and ignorant."
"Using a national tragedy to further his own anti-immigration reform agenda is not only shameful, but also a blatant attempt to disingenuously twist public sentiment at a vulnerable time," said the group in a statement. "We must take a strong stand and make it clear this kind of intolerance has no place in the conservative movement."
At least some conservatives are stepping forward to condemn the insane rhetoric coming from "tea party" darlings like Gohmert and King. However, that insane rheotric may nonetheless be working in making Republicans like Senator Heller think twice about joining their Gang of 8 colleagues in crossing the aisle to support CIR.
And in case that's not bad enough, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) added even more xenophobic fuel to the "tea party" anti-immigrant fire earlier this week.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Sessions warned that the nation’s undocumented immigrants would “be able to immediately apply for much better jobs than they currently have.” “Maybe they were working at a restaurant part time. Now they’re going to be truck drivers, heavy-equipment operators competing at the factories and plants and we’ve got an unemployment rate that’s very high,” he said.
Millions of Americans are still looking for work, but there is little economic evidence to support Sessions’ concerns. Research shows that immigrants and native-born workers have different levels education, occupation, and skill sets, compete in different job markets and are actually more “likely to compete against offshoring than against each other.” Economists argue that legalization leads to better jobs and higher earning power,significantly increasing tax revenue,boosting consumer spending, and supporting 750,000 to 900,000 additional jobs. Studies conducted in the aftermath of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act also concluded that legal status raises the “wage floor” for the economy and increases take-home pay for immigrants and native workers alike.
Sessions’ worries don’t end there, however. The Alabama senator also claimed that the border-security requirement in the proposed bill are “in some ways appears weaker than the one in 2007″ —even though border security has improved significantly since the last time Congress tackled immigration reform. The federal government spent $18 billion —more than on every other federal law enforcement agencies combine —to secure the border during the 2012 fiscal year and has now exceeded the goals and targets set out in the failed 2007 immigration legislation. For instance, there are now more border agents deployed at the Southern border and increased consequences for illegal crossings.
The proposal offered by Gang of 8 will only build on these achievements. Undocumented immigrants are prohibited from obtaining provisional status until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits a comprehensive border security plan and immigrants will not achieve permanent legal status before the Secretary implements a mandatory employment verification system, deploys an electronic exit system, and officials put in place strategies to enhance security on the southern border. The bill establishes persistent surveillance in high risk sectors of the border —areas where apprehensions are above 30,000 individuals per year —and would ensure that 90 percent of entries at certain high-risk southwestern border areas are apprehended or deterred. The Department of Homeland Security will also have significant additional resources for priorities like border security, more funding for customs agents, border crossings prosecutions, and additional patrol stations.
Roll Call hinted at this last night in its report on potential trouble ahead for the Gang of 8 CIR bill. And even if it still manages to survive the Senate, House Republicans are threatening to break it up so they can cherry-pick the parts they like (and perhaps kill the parts they don't).
So there may indeed be a rocky road ahead for immigration reform, despite growing public support for CIR, including the path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants that's the heart of the Gang of 8 Bill. So again, we're all asking what Senator Heller will do. His decision in the coming days will be a factor in determining just how rocky and treacherous of a road that this new CIR proposal faces.
Well, that didn't last long. Just minutes ago, Senator Dean Heller (R-NRA) released this statement.
“When it comes to national policy choices on issues such as Constitutional liberties, gun violence and public safety, the stakes could not be higher. The enormity of this issue has weighed heavily on me. While I was home this past weekend, my family and I ate at the Carson IHOP where four people lost their lives and several were injured. The survivors of that senseless shooting in the morning hours of September 6, 2011, deserve this debate.
“I believe very strongly that our current background check system needs strengthening and improving, particularly in areas that could keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. At the same time, I cannot support legislation that infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Despite the good faith efforts of Senators Manchin and Toomey, the onerous paperwork and expansion of federal power mandated in this legislation are too great of a concern. I believe that this legislation could lead to the creation of a national gun registry and puts additional burdens on law-abiding citizens. For these reasons, I cannot vote for this legislation,” said Senator Dean Heller.
What?! I guess Senator Heller didn't see this. No really, take a look.
But in case you can't, read this and scream. And then, keep in mind this nugget of truth from Think Progress.
In a surprise move, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms announced their support for the Senate’s bipartisan bill to expand background checks on gun sales online and at gun shows. CCRKBA calls itself the second largest gun group after the NRA, which is actively campaigning against the legislation.
Despite the NRA’s fearmongering, CCRKBA head Alan Gottlieb emailed supporters pointing out that the gun package actually promotes their interests, opening up interstate gun sales, requiring prison time for anyone who compiles a gun registry, and protecting gun dealers from liability. [...]
CCRKBA is hardly a progressive group. When President Obama rolled out his proposal for gun violence prevention after the Newtown shooting, CCRKBA swore to “be on the front lines of that resistance” and pushed the idea that the government was simply trying to grab guns. They’ve also traveled to Florida to defend Stand Your Ground laws after the murder of Trayvon Martin.
The group has not had a sudden change of heart. Rather, according to Gottlieb, the group was involved in drafting the Manchin-Toomey compromise bill and “hung a million ornaments on it.” Gottlieb boasted,“We snookered the other side. They haven’t figured it out yet.”
The stiff penalties for anyone who creates a national gun registry were added largely to assuage the gun lobby’s fears that expanding background checks to private sales would lead to a gun registry that would let the government confiscate guns and establish a dictatorship. Even though the CCRKBA is embracing this as a win, only 4 Republicans have agreed to support the measure, and it has yet to reach the critical 60-vote threshold. Other pro-gun advocates are still pushing for an amendment that would further weaken the bill, override tough state laws, and force all states to recognize concealed-carry permits.
Remember this. Senator Heller is complaining about the Manchin-Toomey Amendment, an amendment that actually weakens Senator Harry Reid's (D-Oy Vey) gun safety bill. Oh, and keep in mind that some progressives have been irritated with Senator Reid because his original bill left out the Assault Weapons Ban and any kind of ban on high-capacity magazines (though Reid later promised to allow a vote on the Assault Weapons Ban as an amendment).
So Senator Heller now objects to an amendment written by gun industry lobbyists and meant to weaken Senator Reid's bill, which was already pre-compromised in order to attract bipartisan support? Who's he kidding with his crazy rhetoric? "Onerous paperwork"? "National gun registry"? Is this actually the best he has?
Last week, prospects of a successful gun safety deal seemed quite high. But today, it looks to be on shaky ground yet again. And remember, this is now over a policy with 86% support!
I guess the opinions of 86% of Nevadans don't really matter to Senator Heller. They certainly don't seem to matter as much as some silly letter from the NRA. Just keep this in mind next time Senator Heller spews out some "moderate" rhetoric. He may say that, but his actions point to a whole lot of TEA drinking.
Millions of immigrants living illegally in the United States could earn a chance at citizenship under a sweeping Senate proposal to be released Tuesday that would represent the most ambitious overhaul of the nation's immigration system in three decades.
The highly anticipated proposal from an eight-member bipartisan group also aims to stem the flow of undocumented immigrants into the country by creating tens of thousands of new visas for foreign workers in low-skilled jobs, according to a 17-page summary of the bill obtained by The Washington Post.
In addition, billions of dollars would be invested in new border-control measures, including surveillance drones, security fencing and 3,500 additional federal agents charged with apprehending people attempting to enter illegally from Mexico.
Steve Benen lists more details of the Gang of 8 CIR bill, so let's quickly summarize here what's in it. Basically, most undocumented immigrants will be subjected to a 13 year path to citizenship. Meanwhile, a border security goal will be set to achieve "90% effectiveness" in securing the US-Mexico Border. In the mean time, DREAMers will only face a 5 year path to citizenship while the H-1B work visa program is expanded and a guest worker program is created. That's basically the gist of the Gang of 8 CIR plan.
While the hubbub surrounding today's big reveal has been fairly subdued, civil rights advocates at Voto Latino still held a press conference minutes ago with several House Democrats to speak on this latest CIR development. Nevada's own Rep. Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) was among the Members of Congress speaking at this event.
So far, most progressives are sounding at least cautiously optimistic about today's big news. But of course, what everyone is waiting for is reaction from the right. Here's Jamelle Bouie to explain the complicated CIR politics for conservatives.
What ties all of this [Gang of 8 CIR bill] together are a series of border security triggers, to assuage Republicans who fear a new wave of illegal immigration. The first requires the Department of Homeland Security to establish strategies for border security before any unauthorized immigrant can be given "Registered Provisional" status. The second, then, keeps those with said status from becoming eligible for "Lawful Permanent Resident" status until DHS and the Comptroller General can confirm that an employment verification system has been implemented and new border security measures are in place.
There is also a requirement for the federal government to create -- within ten years --an electronic system for checking foreigners as they enter and leave the country through airports and seaports. Overall, these triggers would require DHS to spend $5.5 billion over ten years to enhance enforcement and further extend fencing along the border with Mexico.
All of this should satisfy the various demands and concerns made by Republicans over the last several months. More to the point, it fits broadly with what Republican voters want.
According to a newly released poll from the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution, 62 percent of Republicans support a path to citizenship if it includes specific requirements like paying back taxes, learning English and passing a background check.
In other words, most Republican lawmakers have no real reason to oppose this based on what they've outlined as their concerns. Which is to say that, with this immigration bill, we'll see if Republicans are actually interested in governing, or if they're still completely invested in an approach of constant opposition to anything proposed or supported by President Obama and the Democratic Party.
If only it actually worked that way. Already, "tea party" darling, US Senate candidate, and current Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has not just announced his (expected) opposition to this CIR deal, but he even tried to tie that to yesterday's tragedy in Boston by claiming that the Boston Marathon Bombing "proves" that "national security should be the focus and a path to citizenship should be put on hold". What?! We don't know yet who did this and why, but most likely yesterday's explosions had nothing to do with CIR. But of course, that won't stop "tea party" radicals from drumming up xenophobic reactions to yesterday's tragedy in hopes of killing CIR.
Now, we must wait to see how other Republicans react to the Gang of 8 plan. Will they embrace the proposal offered by top Republican leaders like Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Marco Rubio (R-Florida)? Or will they follow Steve King and the rest of the "tea party" down the rabbit hole of xenophobia powered excuses for further inaction?
The choice is theirs. And once again, whatever Senator Dean Heller (R-46%) decides will be critical to the future of this comprehensive immigration reform legislation. So what will he do? And who will he listen to?
Apparently, Carson City isn't holding a monopoly on legislative action this week. Just minutes ago, something fairly amazing happened in Washington, DC. For the first time in nearly two decades, the US Senate voted to proceed debate on gun safety reform legislation.
With families of victims of the Newtown, Conn., massacre watching silently from the chamber, the Senate thwarted a threatened filibuster with a vote of 68 to 31 and will proceed next week to debate a package of legislation that would expand background checks for gun buyers and increase the penalties for criminal sales, in addition to a variety of other amendments. Those include the renewal of the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.
Twenty-nine Republicans voted against the measure, as did two Democrats.
"Americans across this great country are looking to us for solutions and for action," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "not for filibustering or sloganeering." [...]
The vote, while a short-term victory for gun-control advocates, in no way presages passage of new gun laws. The impending bill will again need 60 votes to end the debate after consideration of contentious amendments offered by both supporters and opponents of new laws.
This has been a long time coming, but we're finally here. And by the way, Senator Dean Heller (R) ultimately voted to end the filibuster on the motion to proceed with official debate. So he essentially voted with the majority to allow for formal debate to Senator Harry Reid's (D) gun safety bill, and to allow for potentially many votes on many amendments to it.
Remember, this is far from over. And although it doesn't feel as such, this is officially only just the beginning of the US Senate's official consideration of Senator Reid's gun safety bill. We're certainly still a far distance from a final cloture vote on a final bill.
So what will Senator Heller ultimately vote for? We don't know yet.
And what will Senator Reid allow to be added to his bill? We don't know completely just yet (though we know he is open to at least some amendments).
So what will finally happen here? You tell me. Otherwise, we must wait & see.
The past two days have been very topsy-turvy on gun safety legislation in Congress. On Monday, pundits were wondering if anything and everything was finally dead. But yesterday, hope sprang again as several Republican Senators (including Nevada's Dean Heller) decided to break an expected filibuster on a motion to proceed (which allows for formal Senate debate and consideration of legislation). And today, a deal has been made on background checks.
Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., were expected to announce a background check compromise on Wednesday. Subjecting more firearms purchases to federal background checks has been the chief goal of Obama and gun control supporters, who promote the system as a way to prevent criminals and other risky people from getting the weapons.
After weeks of negotiations, Manchin and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters late Tuesday that a gun control agreement was close.
The emerging deal would expand required background checks for sales at gun shows and online but exempt transactions like face-to-face, noncommercial purchases, said Senate staffers and lobbyists, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks. Currently, the checks are required only for sales handled through licensed gun dealers.
Though many details of the emerging agreement were unclear, Manchin and Toomey are among their parties’ most conservative members and a deal could make it easier for some hesitant senators to support the background check measure, at least for now. [...]
The gun legislation Reid wants the Senate to debate would extend the background check requirement to nearly all gun sales. Assuming the deal between Manchin and Toomey is completed, Reid would try to replace that language with their agreement once debate begins, a move that would require a vote.
The Manchin-Toomey deal still leaves in place a loophole for "face-to-face, noncommercial purchases" (however that will be allowed to be defined) and possibly other types of private sales, but it looks like this deal will allow for expanded background checks for other gun purchases that are currently exempted from such. But whether they, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York), and Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) introduce this as an amendment to the bill or Senator Reid replaces the language himself, it looks like the bill's advocates are ready to accept this deal.
However, there are still some Senators who think even Reid's bill as is doesn't go far enough. We've talked before about Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and her determination to pass a new Assault Weapons Ban to replace and improve upon the one that expired in 2004. Last night, she discussed with Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC why she still refuses to give up.
“If they don’t help me invoke cloture on this bill, we’re going to vote on these things anyway. It might take a little time,” said Reid. “As I’ve said for months now, the American people deserve a vote: on background checks, on federal trafficking, on safety in schools, on the size of clips and yes, assault weapons.”
The Obama administration continues to fight to gain bipartisan support for new gun measures to expand background checks for people buying guns and ban assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is leading the charge to revive a ban on military-style assault weapons, told MSNBC that she plans to offer assault weapons bill as an amendment and remains optimistic.
“I have a commitment from the majority leader that I will have a vote and I take him at his word,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell on Tuesday. “What’s important to me is to dry up the supply of these weapons so that over time they are less apt to fall in the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, people who are mentally disabled and criminals.”
Last month, Reid dropped the controversial restriction on military-style weapons from the bill in order, he said, to save the larger piece of gun reform legislation.
Feinstein said lawmakers must press on: “It’s important to the nation to know where people stand on a matter that’s as important as this.”
As we discussed yesterday, this will be a process. It will take a while. And there will clearly be many amendments. Some amendments will be introduced to weaken the bill, while others will be introduced to strengthen the bill.
But finally, there is a bill. The bill is S 649. And it will likely get its day(s) on the Senate floor.
This has been a long time coming. But now, finally, the "sausage making" on gun safety legislation has begun... And progressed for a change.
