Senate plots to break Tommy Tuberville’s hold on military nominees
Democrats on the Senate Rules Committee advanced a resolution on Tuesday that would allow the Senate to override U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s (R-Alabama) nine-month hold on military promotions. Tuberville spoke at length with Alabama reporters on Wednesday about this development. “What’s happening now, that I have been about nine or ten months of holds on admirals and generals – flag officers, the Democrats have said we are just going around Coach,” Sen. Tuberville said. “We are going to go to the Rules Committee (and) pass a new rule that we can go around him, and for the next year and a half, we won’t have holds from the minority part of the Senate. That will probably happen in maybe around the first of December. It did come out of committee. It did come out of the rules committee, so now they will have the vote in the next couple of weeks to go around me.” Senate rules require 60 votes to change the rules, meaning that with a 51 to 49 split, Democrats need Republican support to pass the rule change. “They have got to have nine Republicans,” Tuberville said. “I can’t imagine nine Republicans siding with the Democrats. Number one against pro-life. Number two against executive overreach and then siding with the Democrats on anything because they don’t side with us on anything.” The resolution was led by Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. The rule would temporarily change the process, allowing for the nominees to be approved en masse, letting the chamber more quickly vote on the promotions that Tuberville has slowed with his opposition. It would require the support of all Democrats and independents and at least nine Republicans. Several GOP Senators have expressed their frustrations with Tuberville over this publicly. It remains to be seen if there are nine of them willing to stand with Democrats and risk backlash from the pro-life movement over it to pass the rule change. Several Republican Senators have become frustrated with Tuberville’s intransigence on this and have spent hours on the Senate floor criticizing him on this topic – hours that could have been spent confirming military promotions simply by bringing a petition to override Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-New York) stranglehold on the Senate calendar. Tuberville said he has had no assurances from his Republican colleagues that they will not cross over and vote with Democrats on this rule change. “I have not been assured,” Tuberville said. “I think there is going to be some people on the Republican side that say that we need to get this over with and not hold up these promotions. We don’t need to do that because it is not affecting readiness at all. I do have a couple of things that I am working on maybe to avoid this to get this over with before a vote happens. Right now, the Republican Party is going to have to decide whether they are going to be pro-life or vote for this resolution to pass to go around me. It is disturbing sometimes. I am not establishment. I vote for the people of Alabama, and I hope the rest of our delegation would vote for their state, and if they did that, they would vote against the Democrats.” One reporter asked if Tuberville’s holds were pro-life versus the military. Sen. Tuberville objected to that verbiage. “These holds are not pro-life versus military,” Tuberville answered. “The Republicans – all Republicans – we’re pro-life, and we’re also for the military. The Democrats are not for either. They are definitely not for the life of the unborn, and they really don’t support the military like Republicans do, so let’s go down that avenue.” Tuberville remains staunchly opposed to the Pentagon’s abortion policy, which allows servicemembers and their families stationed in states where abortion is restricted to take time off and be reimbursed for travel expenses for the procedure. Critics say his tactic of holding up the promotions threatens military readiness and unfairly punishes service members. “I am doing what is right for the people of Alabama and the American people, and hopefully my Republican colleagues stick with me on that,” Tuberville concluded. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and every other Republican on the committee voted against the resolution, though they have told reporters that they are still trying to find a solution with Tuberville. The body could bring the nominations as part of regular order as the Founders intended, or the Defense Department could reverse the controversial policy change prompting Tuberville’s hold in the first place. Democrats are unwilling to compromise on either point and have rejected a plan in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives’ version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would override the Defense Department policy that created this conflict. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Tommy Tuberville to seek floor vote on No. 2 Marine leader after commandant hospitalized
Ashley Murray, Alabama Reflector WASHINGTON — Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who for months has been blocking hundreds of military promotions in protest of a Pentagon abortion policy, plans to call a floor vote on the nominee for second-in-command of the U.S. Marines Corps after its top leader Gen. Eric M. Smith suffered a health emergency Sunday. Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, gathered the required petition signatures to bring an individual vote to the floor on Lt. Gen. Christopher Mahoney, nominee for the Corps’ assistant commandant. President Joe Biden nominated Mahoney in July. “The vote could be as soon as Thursday,” said Steven Stafford, spokesperson for Tuberville’s office. Stafford said Tuberville collected the 16 signatures he needed in roughly 30 minutes during the Senate’s weekly lunch on Tuesday. Stafford would not disclose names but said all signees are Republicans. Tuberville’s list of blocked nominees grew to 378 as of Friday but could balloon to 650 by year’s end, according to the Pentagon. Sens. Jack Reed, chair of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and Kyrsten Sinema are mulling a proposal to bypass Tuberville’s holds and allow promotions to reach the floor en bloc rather than individually. Text of the proposal is not yet available, according to a spokesperson for Sinema, an independent who represents Arizona. Smith remains hospitalized, but further details about his condition and what happened Sunday were not released. “Due to the expressed wishes of his family, we are respecting their privacy at this difficult time. The Marine Corps will provide more information once it becomes available,” a Pentagon spokesperson said Tuesday. Reed issued a statement on Smith just after 4:30 p.m. Eastern Monday. “I am wishing General Smith a speedy recovery. He is one of our nation’s finest and toughest leaders, and I hope he will return to full strength soon. My thoughts are with General Smith and his family,” the Rhode Island Democrat said. Tuberville also sits on the Armed Services Committee. Smith was confirmed in September after Tuberville pursued a similar effort to force individual votes for top military nominees. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York set up the votes to confirm Gen. Charles Q. Brown as the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Randy George to Army chief of staff, and Smith. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has warned the delayed promotions are a threat to national security. Defense abortion policy In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to strike down the federal right to abortion, the Pentagon announced that service members could receive leave and travel allowances when seeking abortions in areas of the country where it remains legal. The court’s decision triggered a patchwork of state-by-state abortion laws. About 80,000 active-duty female troops are based in states where legislatures enacted full or partial bans, according to a September 2022 analysis by the RAND Corporation, a think tank that has long produced defense research. Tuberville maintains the department’s policy is illegal. The Pentagon and Biden administration refute that claim. Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Follow Alabama Reflector on Facebook and Twitter.
Katie Britt cosponsors bipartisan bill to permanently end budget brinkmanship
On Wednesday, U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Alabama) joined a bipartisan group of 11 colleagues as a co-sponsor of Senator James Lankford’s (R-Oklahoma) Prevent Government Shutdowns Act of 2023. This legislation would permanently end the practice of shutting down the federal government and disrupting critical services if Congress fails to enact spending bills by the start of the next fiscal year. Under the bill’s provisions, if Congress does not enact all 12 appropriations on time, an automatic 14-day Continuing Resolution (CR) would be triggered and keep funding at the previous fiscal year’s levels. If there is no resolution at the end of two weeks, automatic 14-day CRs would go into effect on a rolling basis until either all appropriations bills are enacted or a long-term CR is enacted. “The American people are tired of seeing critical government services being held hostage while Congress irresponsibly pushes to pass massive spending bills at the last minute,” said Sen. Britt. “Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to keep paying the price for this budgetary political brinksmanship. This commonsense bill would ensure we have a fail-safe mechanism in place that will take these drastic options off the table, so members of the Senate and the House have time to draft the best bills possible in a transparent, accountable, and judicious manner.” While the federal government is operating under the automatic CRs, the legislation would require Congress to meet every day, including weekends, and members of Congress could not use any official funds for travel. They also could not consider any other measures other than appropriations bills. The travel restrictions would also apply to congressional staff and officials from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Lankford said that restraint is needed to balance the budget. Lankford said, “To put this in context, with the record revenue that’s coming in this year at about $4.8 trillion, if we were spending the same this year as we did in 2018, a short five years ago. If we were spending the same this year as we were in 2018 prior to COVID, we would have a $700 billion surplus this year rather than an almost $2 trillion deficit—this year—because the record amount of revenue coming in this year compared to what our spending was five years ago, we would have been in surplus this year. But we’re not, and it’s at $1.5 trillion over that. We have a very serious issue. We should have very hard conversations about our revenue, about our spending, about the direction that we’re actually heading, and about how do we get out of a $33 trillion debt.” In addition to Senator Britt, co-sponsors of Senator Lankford’s bill include Senators Maggie Hassan (D-New Hampshire), Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), Angus King (I-Maine), Rick Scott (R-Florida), Mark Kelly (D-Arizona), Steve Daines (R-Montana), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Arizona), Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), Mike Braun (R-Indiana), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming). Senator Britt is also a co-sponsor of Senator Braun’s No Budget, No Pay Act. That legislation would bar members of Congress from getting paid until they passed a budget. President Joe Biden has not submitted a balanced budget since entering the White House. Katie Britt was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2022. She serves on the Appropriations Committee tasked with passing each of the 12 appropriations bills. CRs go around the committee by a handful of powerful Senators who craft the CR with the White House to keep the government funded. Often, those CR writers are able to insert earmarks and other language into a CR or omnibus spending bill that is never vetted by committee. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Katies Britt joins bipartisan group of colleagues questioning Federal Reserve’s actions in Silicon Valley Bank crisis
On Monday, U.S. Senator Katie Britt joined Senators Kyrsten Sinema, Thom Tillis, and a bipartisan group of Senators questioning the Federal Reserve its’ oversight of troubled Silicon Valley Bank before the bank’s failure. The Sens. claim that the Federal Reserve missed clear warning signs – including bank leadership’s failure to appropriately manage customer deposits. That it missed as part of its responsibilities to conduct oversight and examinations ahead of Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse. “SVB is a clear case of regulators refusing to do their job despite the fact that all of the red flags were there,” said Sen. Britt. “The Fed failed to use the tools in their toolbox to prevent what we saw in recent weeks, and I want to know why. Alabamians don’t just want answers, they deserve answers. And I, for one, will not stop until we get them.” “It is gravely concerning that retail participants, utilizing only publicly available information, were able to identify clear and compelling examples of financial mismanagement and asset over-concentration at SVB, while the Fed, which can draw even deeper from non-public supervisory information, was unable to ascertain a similar conclusion,” the Sens. wrote in their letter. “The fact that the San Francisco Fed, among other regulatory agencies, found no reason to take appropriate regulatory action or even investigate SVB further in the months, weeks, and days prior to the bank’s collapse must be addressed in a manner that restores public confidence in Fed supervision.” “Safety and soundness is the cornerstone regulatory principle of the U.S. banking system, and it is important we assess what went wrong at SVB to ensure future stability in the U.S. financial services sector. Specifically, we support any efforts that will provide further information on all relevant risks, actions, and inactions – taken by SVB and by regulators, supervisors, and examiners – that contributed to this failure,” the Sens. wrote. “It is gravely concerning that retail participants, utilizing only publicly available information, were able to identify clear and compelling examples of financial mismanagement and asset over-concentration at SVB, while the Fed, which can draw even deeper from non-public supervisory information, was unable to ascertain a similar conclusion. The fact that the San Francisco Fed, among other regulatory agencies, found no reason to take appropriate regulatory action or even investigate SVB further in the months, weeks, and days prior to the bank’s collapse must be addressed in a manner that restores public confidence in Fed supervision. We look forward to evaluating the results of your review, particularly with respect to the robustness of Fed supervision and examination of SVB.” Britt joined Sinema and Tillis in cosigning the letter. Also cosigning were Sens. John Hickenlooper (D-Colorado), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Bill Hagerty (R-Tennessee), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nevada), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), and Michael Bennet (D-Colorado). There are media reports that federal regulators knew about the problems at SVB for more than a year, and yet they hesitated to act. The Wall Street Journal reported that federal bank regulators knew Silicon Valley Bank was a troubled bank as early as 2019. In 2021, the Federal Reserve cautioned the bank about significant vulnerabilities in the bank’s containment of risk. SVB had a uniquely concentrated customer base of venture capital funds, venture investors, and start-ups, many of whom have or have had financial relationships or business partnerships with one another. That customer base includes a significant level of financial interdependency that potentially increased risk. The Fed identified the risks to the bank, yet SVB did nothing to mitigate any of the risks. The Federal Reserve has already announced an internal investigation into its regulatory oversight, supervision, and examination of Silicon Valley Bank. The Senators urged that as part of this investigation, the Fed should focus on the role of concentration risk in the bank examination process and review the financial arrangements between Silicon Valley Bank and its customers to determine their impact on the bank’s collapse. Katie Britt is a member of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Joe Guzzardi: Clock ticking on Alejandro Mayorkas; House files impeachment articles
The 118th Congress had barely convened before the Senate’s amnesty addicts traveled to the border and began pontificating about the bipartisan immigration action they were about to embark upon. Whenever Congress touts bipartisanship as it relates to immigration, the sub rosa message is that amnesty legislation, which Americans have consistently rejected, is percolating. Neither amnesty’s failed history – countless futile efforts since the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act – nor the Republican-controlled House of Representatives stopped determined Senators Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), Mark Kelly, (D-Ariz.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.). Tillis tipped off the group’s hand when he said, “It’s not just about border security; it’s not just about a path to citizenship or some certainty for a population.” One of those populations would be the “Dreamers,” with a 20-year-long failed legislative record. Sinema took advantage of the border trip to promote her failed amnesty, her leftovers from the December Lame Duck session, a three-week period when radical immigration legislation usually finds a home. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) tweeted that “our immigration system is badly broken…” drivel that’s been repeated so often it’s lost whatever meaning it once may have had. The immigration system is “badly broken,” to quote Coons, because immigration laws have been ignored for decades. Critics laughingly call the out-of-touch, border-visiting senators the “Sell-Out Safari.” Coons’ tweet is classic duplicity. Coons, Sinema, Kelly, and Murphy have consistently voted against measures to enforce border security and against fortifying the interior by providing more agents and by giving more authority to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Republicans Tillis and Cornyn are also immigration expansionists. Tillis worked with Sinema on her unsuccessful Lame Duck amnesty. Cornyn sponsored, with Sinema and Tillis as cosponsors, the “Bipartisan Border Solutions” bill that would have built more processing centers to expedite migrants’ release and to create a “fairer and more efficient” way to decide asylum cases. The bill, which never got off the ground, would have rolled out the red carpet to more prospective migrants at a time when the border is under siege. The good news is that the border safari, an updated version of the 2013 Gang of Eight that promoted but couldn’t deliver an amnesty, was a cheap photo op that intended to reflect concern about the border crisis when, in fact, the senators’ voting records prove that the invasion doesn’t trouble them in the least. More good news is that Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the new Speaker of the House, represents enforcement proponents’ best chance to move their agenda forward since 2007 when Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) first held the job. Republicans John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) followed Pelosi from 2011 to 2019 when Pelosi returned as Speaker. Although Boehner and Ryan are Republicans, their commitment to higher immigration levels was not much different than Pelosi’s. Boehner and Ryan received 0 percent scores on immigration, meaning that they favor looser immigration enforcement and more employment-based visas for foreign-born workers. Also in McCarthy’s favor is the public support for tightening the border. Polls taken in September 2022 showed that a majority of Americans, including 76 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Independents, thought President Joe Biden should be doing more to ensure border security. Moreover, a plurality of Americans opposes using tax dollars to transport migrants, a common practice in the Biden catch-and-release era. McCarthy must become more proactive and make good on his November call for the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to resign or face impeachment. “He cannot and must not remain in that position,” McCarthy said. “If Secretary [Alejandro] Mayorkas does not resign, House Republicans will investigate every order, every action, and every failure to determine whether we can begin an impeachment inquiry.” McCarthy has the backing of the Chairmen of the Judiciary and Oversight Committees, Jim Jordan and James Comer. On January 9, Pat Fallon (R-Texas) filed articles of impeachment that charged Mayorkas with, among other offenses, “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Mayorkas insists he won’t resign and that he’s prepared for whatever investigations may come his way. Assuming the House presses on, and that the DHS secretary remains committed to keeping his post, Capitol Hill fireworks are assured, the fallout from which could lead to Mayorkas’ departure. Joe Guzzardi is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist who writes about immigration and related social issues. Joe joined Progressives for Immigration Reform in 2018 as an analyst after a ten-year career directing media relations for Californians for Population Stabilization, where he also was a Senior Writing Fellow. A native Californian, Joe now lives in Pennsylvania. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.
Bill protecting same-sex, interracial unions clears Congress
The House gave final approval Thursday to legislation protecting same-sex marriages, a monumental step in a decadeslong battle for nationwide recognition that reflects a stark turnaround in societal attitudes. President Joe Biden has said he will promptly sign the measure, which requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages. It is a relief for hundreds of thousands of couples who have married since the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision that legalized those marriages and have worried about what would happen if the ruling were overturned. In a statement after the vote, Biden called the legislation a “critical step to ensure that Americans have the right to marry the person they love.” He said the legislation provides “hope and dignity to millions of young people across this country who can grow up knowing that their government will recognize and respect the families they build.” The bipartisan legislation, which passed 258-169 with 39 Republican votes, would also protect interracial unions by requiring states to recognize legal marriages regardless of “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.” After months of negotiations, the Senate passed the bill last week with 12 Republican votes. Democrats moved the bill quickly through the House and Senate after the Supreme Court’s decision in June that overturned the federal right to an abortion — including a concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas that suggested the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalizing same-sex marriage could also be reconsidered. While many Republicans predicted that was unlikely to happen, and said the bill was unnecessary, Democrats and GOP supporters of the bill said it shouldn’t be left to chance. “We need it,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who presided over the vote as one of her last acts in leadership before stepping aside in January. “It is magic.” The bill is “a glorious triumph of love and freedom,” Pelosi said, tearing up as she celebrated its passage. In debate before the vote, several gay members of Congress talked about what a federal law would mean for them and their families. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., said he and his husband should be able to visit each other in the hospital just like any other married couple and receive spousal benefits “regardless of if your spouse’s name is Samuel or Samantha.” Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H., said he was set to marry “the love of my life” next year, and it is “unthinkable” that his marriage might not be recognized in some states if Obergefell were to be overturned. “The idea of marriage equality used to be a far-fetched idea,” said Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I. “Now it’s the law of the land and supported by the vast majority of Americans.” The legislation lost some Republican support since July, when 47 Republicans voted for it — a robust and unexpected show of support that kick-started serious negotiations in the Senate. But most of those lawmakers held firm, with a cross-section of the party, from conservatives to moderates, voting for the bill. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy voted against it. “To me, this is really just standing with the Constitution,” said Republican Rep. Ann Wagner of Missouri, who voted for the bill both times. She pushed back on GOP arguments that it would affect the religious rights of those who don’t believe in same-sex marriage. “No one’s religious liberties are affected in any way, shape, or form,” Wagner said. Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah said he was “proud to once again vote in favor of protecting our LGBTQ and religious friends and neighbors.” He praised Senate changes to the bill, ensuring that it would not affect current rights of religious institutions and groups. “Civil rights are not a finite resource, we do not have to take from one group to give to another,” Stewart said. The legislation would not require states to allow same-sex couples to marry, as Obergefell now does. But it would require states to recognize all marriages that were legal where they were performed and protect current same-sex unions if the Supreme Court decision were overturned. While it’s not everything advocates may have wanted, passage of the legislation represents a watershed moment. Just a decade ago, many Republicans openly campaigned on blocking same-sex marriages; today, more than two-thirds of the public support them. Still, most Republicans opposed the legislation, and some conservative advocacy groups lobbied aggressively against it in recent weeks, arguing that it doesn’t do enough to protect those who want to refuse services for same-sex couples. “God’s perfect design is indeed marriage between one man and one woman for life,” said Rep. Bob Good, R-Va, before the vote. “And it doesn’t matter what you think or what I think; that’s what the Bible says.” Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., choked up as she begged colleagues to vote against the bill, which she said undermines “natural marriage” between a man and a woman. “I’ll tell you my priorities,” Hartzler said. “Protect religious liberty, protect people of faith and protect Americans who believe in the true meaning of marriage.” Democrats in the Senate, led by Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, worked with supportive Republican senators to address those GOP concerns by negotiating changes to clarify that the legislation does not impair the rights of private individuals or businesses. The amended bill would also make clear that a marriage is between two people, an effort to ward off some far-right criticism that the legislation could endorse polygamy. In the end, several religious groups, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, came out in support of the bill. The Mormon church said it would support rights for same-sex couples as long as they didn’t infringe upon religious groups’ right to believe as they choose. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who led negotiations with Baldwin and Sinema in the Senate, attended a ceremony after the House vote with Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. “When I think about this bill, I think about how much it matters to people in each of our lives, our family members, our coworkers, our
Democrats kept the Senate this year, but 2024 may be harder
Democrats celebrating a successful effort to keep control of the U.S. Senate this year will soon confront a 2024 campaign that could prove more challenging. The party enters the next cycle defending 23 seats, including two held by independents who caucus with Democrats. That’s compared with just 10 seats that Republicans hope to keep in their column. Adding to the potential hurdles is that some 2024 contests are in states that have become increasingly hostile to Democrats, including Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia. Other Democratic-held seats are in some of the same hotly contested states that were at the center of this year’s midterms, such as Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada. And while Democrats carried each of those races, they did so at great cost and with sometimes narrow margins. In Nevada, for instance, Democratic incumbent Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto won by less than 1 percentage point, or about 9,000 votes. For now, both parties insist they’re laser-focused on coming out on top in the December 6 Senate runoff in Georgia. But Democrats who are on the ballot in 2024 know that they could face fierce headwinds and are studying the results of this year’s election when the party outperformed expectations. For Nevada Sen. Jacky Rosen, a Democrat facing her first reelection campaign, that means staying focused on kitchen table issues and touting legislation like the infrastructure law and gun violence legislation signed by President Joe Biden. “We know that races are always close,” Rosen said in an interview. “We never take anything for granted.” The dynamics of the next Senate campaign could be influenced by a variety of outside factors, particularly the presidential election and the attention it generates. Biden, who turned 80 this month, has said his “intention” is to run for reelection and that he will make a final decision early next year. Former President Donald Trump has already announced a third White House bid, and multiple other Republicans are lining up to launch campaigns. The eventual nominee in each party could have a profound impact on down-ballot races, including those for Senate. But perhaps the biggest question for Senate Democrats seeking reelection will be who Republicans nominate as their opponents. The GOP lost several Senate elections this year, including those in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Nevada, after Trump-backed candidates struggled to raise money and connect with a broader, more moderate range of voters during the general election. In Nevada, the Republican field to challenge Rosen has not begun to shape up but is expected to attract several contenders. One name receiving attention is Sam Brown, a former U.S. Army captain who was awarded a Purple Heart after being severely wounded in Afghanistan. Brown ran for Senate this year and put up a strong challenge in the Republican primary before losing to Adam Laxalt, who lost in the general election to Cortez Masto. Richard Hernandez, who was Brown’s campaign adviser, said, “He has committed to his supporters that he will never stop fighting for their issues, but he has not made any decisions as to whether that involves a future run for office.” Also in the southwest, Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, a centrist Democrat, will be up for reelection. The race, like other recent statewide contests in Arizona, is expected to be very competitive. But Sinema is likely to first face a well-funded primary challenger after angering much of the Democratic base by blocking or watering down progressive priorities like a minimum wage increase or Biden’s big social spending initiatives. She has not said whether she plans to run for reelection. Sinema’s most prominent potential primary challenger is U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego, who has a long history of feuding with Sinema. Gallego has not announced his plans for 2024 but has made it no secret that he’s thinking about challenging Sinema. He even raised money on the prospect he might oppose Sinema. An independent expenditure group is also raising money, saying it will support grassroots organizations committed to defeating Sinema in a Democratic primary. Republicans hope a bruising Democratic primary might give them an opening to win the seat after losing Senate races in Arizona in three consecutive elections. Sinema is among a trio of moderate Senate Democrats who have sometimes used their leverage in an evenly divided chamber to block or blunt some of Biden’s plans and nominees. They will also be among the party’s most vulnerable incumbents in 2024. The other two senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana, will be running as Democrats in states that Trump handily carried in 2020. Manchin has already drawn a GOP challenger in U.S. Rep. Alex Mooney, who declared a week after winning reelection that he was setting his sights on higher office. Manchin has not yet said whether he’ll run for reelection. Republicans see Tester, a three-term senator, as vulnerable, and the opportunity to run for the seat could draw a fierce primary contest between former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Rep. Matt Rosendale. Zinke, who won a House seat in this year’s midterm elections, said he will decide whether to run next year, and Rosendale declined to answer. Tester has not announced if he will seek another term but has said he anticipates 2024 will be just as tough as his last race in 2018, when he beat Rosendale in a close contest. In Pennsylvania, Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Casey has not said whether he intends to run for a fourth term. Casey easily won reelection in 2018, but Pennsylvania has been competitive for Republicans, including in this year’s Senate race won by Democrat John Fetterman. One potential Republican challenger whose name has been floated in Pennsylvania is former hedge fund CEO David McCormick, who narrowly lost the Republican primary in this year’s race to celebrity heart surgeon Dr. Mehmet Oz. McCormick advisers declined to comment on that prospect. Conservative activist Kathy Barnette, who finished a close third in the Republican primary, didn’t respond to messages about whether she’s considering a 2024 campaign. Wisconsin, which saw Republican Sen. Ron Johnson narrowly win reelection this year, is also expected to have
Senate Democrats pass budget package, a victory for Joe Biden
Democrats pushed their election-year economic package to Senate passage Sunday, a hard-fought compromise less ambitious than President Joe Biden’s original domestic vision but one that still meets deep-rooted party goals of slowing global warming, moderating pharmaceutical costs, and taxing immense corporations. The estimated $740 billion package heads next to the House, where lawmakers are poised to deliver on Biden’s priorities, a stunning turnaround of what had seemed a lost and doomed effort that suddenly roared back to political life. Cheers broke out as Senate Democrats held united, 51-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote after an all-night session. “Today, Senate Democrats sided with American families over special interests,” President Joe Biden said in a statement from Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. “I ran for President promising to make government work for working families again, and that is what this bill does — period.” Biden, who had his share of long nights during his three decades as a senator, called into the Senate cloakroom during the vote on speakerphone to personally thank the staff for their hard work. The president urged the House to pass the bill as soon as possible. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said her chamber would “move swiftly to send this bill to the president’s desk.” House votes are expected Friday. “It’s been a long, tough, and winding road, but at last, at last we have arrived,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., ahead of final votes. “The Senate is making history. I am confident the Inflation Reduction Act will endure as one of the defining legislative feats of the 21st century,” he said. Senators engaged in a round-the-clock marathon of voting that began Saturday and stretched late into Sunday afternoon. Democrats swatted down some three dozen Republican amendments designed to torpedo the legislation. Confronting unanimous GOP opposition, Democratic unity in the 50-50 chamber held, keeping the party on track for a morale-boosting victory three months from elections when congressional control is at stake. The bill ran into trouble midday over objections to the new 15% corporate minimum tax that private equity firms and other industries disliked, forcing last-minute changes. Despite the momentary setback, the “Inflation Reduction Act” gives Democrats a campaign-season showcase for action on coveted goals. It includes the largest-ever federal effort on climate change — close to $400 billion — caps out-of-pocket drug costs for seniors on Medicare to $2,000 a year and extends expiring subsidies that help 13 million people afford health insurance. By raising corporate taxes and reaping savings from the long-sought goal of allowing the government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare, the whole package is paid for, with some $300 billion extra revenue for deficit reduction. Barely more than one-tenth the size of Biden’s initial 10-year, $3.5 trillion Build Back Better initiative, the new package abandons earlier proposals for universal preschool, paid family leave, and expanded child care aid. That plan collapsed after conservative Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., opposed it, saying it was too costly and would fuel inflation. Nonpartisan analysts have said the 755-page “Inflation Reduction Act” would have a minor effect on surging consumer prices. Republicans said the new measure would undermine an economy that policymakers are struggling to keep from plummeting into recession. They said the bill’s business taxes would hurt job creation and force prices skyward, making it harder for people to cope with the nation’s worst inflation since the 1980s. “Democrats have already robbed American families once through inflation, and now their solution is to rob American families a second time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., argued. In an ordeal imposed on most budget bills like this one, the Senate had to endure an overnight “vote-a-rama” of rapid-fire amendments. Each tested Democrats’ ability to hold together the compromise bill negotiated by Schumer, progressives, Manchin, and the inscrutable centrist Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. Progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., criticized the bill’s shortcomings and offered amendments to further expand the legislation’s health benefits, but those efforts were defeated. Republicans forced their own votes designed to make Democrats look soft on U.S.-Mexico border security and gasoline and energy costs, and like bullies for wanting to strengthen IRS tax law enforcement. Before debate began, the bill’s prescription drug price curbs were diluted by the Senate’s nonpartisan parliamentarian, who said a provision should fall that would impose costly penalties on drug makers whose price increases for private insurers exceed inflation. It was the bill’s chief protection for the 180 million people with private health coverage they get through work or purchase themselves. Under special procedures that will let Democrats pass their bill by simple majority without the usual 60-vote margin, its provisions must be focused more on dollar-and-cents budget numbers than policy changes. But the thrust of Democrats’ pharmaceutical price language remained. That included letting Medicare negotiate what it pays for drugs for its 64 million elderly recipients, penalizing manufacturers for exceeding inflation for pharmaceuticals sold to Medicare, and limiting beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket drug costs to $2,000 annually. The bill also caps Medicare patients’ costs for insulin, the expensive diabetes medication, at $35 monthly. Democrats wanted to extend the $35 cap to private insurers, but it ran afoul of Senate rules. Most Republicans voted to strip it from the package, though in a sign of the political potency of health costs, seven GOP senators joined Democrats trying to preserve it. The measure’s final costs were being recalculated to reflect late changes, but overall it would raise more than $700 billion over a decade. The money would come from a 15% minimum tax on a handful of corporations with yearly profits above $1 billion, a 1% tax on companies that repurchase their own stock, bolstered IRS tax collections, and government savings from lower drug costs. Sinema forced Democrats to drop a plan to prevent wealthy hedge fund managers from paying less than individual income tax rates for their earnings. She also joined with other Western senators to win $4 billion to combat the region’s drought. Several Democratic senators joined the GOP-led effort to exclude some firms from the new corporate minimum tax. The package keeps to Biden’s pledge not to
GOP targets for Dem bill: Inflation, taxes, Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema
Republicans see inflation, taxes, and immigration as Democratic weak spots worth attacking, and two opposition senators as prime targets in the upcoming battle over an economic package the Democrats want to push through the Senate. The measure embodies some of the top environment, energy, health care, and tax policy aspirations that President Joe Biden and party leaders want to enact as voters start tuning in to this fall’s congressional elections. The GOP would like to derail or weaken the measure, or at least force Democrats to take votes that would be painful to defend in reelection campaigns. Republicans are already aiming fire at Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who crafted the measure with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and unexpectedly pumped life into an effort most Democrats considered moribund. Manchin is a conservative Democrat from a deep red state who has scuttled his party’s priorities before, and Republicans have savaged him in recent days, an unsubtle signal that they’ll be coming for him should he seek reelection in 2024. “He made a terrible deal,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters this week. “How he can defend this from a West Virginia point of view, or think of it as a centrist type of agreement, is astonishing. This is an agreement only Bernie Sanders would love.” Even Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., who has a strong relationship with Manchin and seldom clashes with him publicly, lambasted the legislation for imposing a minimum tax on huge, profitable corporations that she said would hinder investments. “Like many West Virginians, I’m concerned that this tax increase will delay closing the digital divide” in rural communities, she said. Republicans are taking a softer approach with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who has been coy about the legislation and has shown concerns about tax increases. She’s her party’s biggest question mark on this bill in the 50-50 chamber, where all Republicans seem certain to vote “no,” and she’s held several discussions with GOP senators during votes this week. Sinema has opposed past proposals to raise taxes on wealthy equity firm executives, which this time would raise around $14 billion of this legislation’s $739 billion in revenue. She met with Arizona manufacturers who oppose boosting the corporate minimum tax and thanked her afterward in a tweet for her “thoughtful approach & willingness to listen to AZ job creators.” “I don’t know what she thinks,” Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters. “‘We are making our case’ is the best we can say.” The 10-year measure includes hundreds of billions in spending and tax breaks to encourage alternative energy production and to bolster fossil fuels with steps like tax breaks for technology that reduces carbon emissions. There’s also money to help people buy private health coverage and provisions giving Medicare the power to negotiate prices on some drugs with pharmaceutical makers. The bill “will lower costs, fight inflation, and secure historic wins in the fight against climate change,” Schumer said. The GOP seems certain to try stripping or toning down the corporate minimum tax and language raising taxes on wealthy equity firm executives as well and has hopes of winning over Sinema as the decisive vote for that. After she opposed Democrats’ proposed tax rate increases last year on corporations and high earners, they switched to a corporate minimum tax that she supported, but it is uncertain if she will do so now. Republicans could fashion amendments aimed at particular Democratic senators — such as one exempting coal producers from certain taxes in a play for Manchin. To buttress its argument, the GOP released an analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation that Republicans said showed tax boosts for people earning below $400,000. That would violate Biden’s pledge to not boost levies on that income group. “Ordinary Americans would bear a substantial part of the burden of this tax increase,” said No. 2 Senate GOP leader John Thune of South Dakota. Democrats dismissed that attack, noting that the study omitted the effect of the bill’s health care and energy tax breaks for individuals. It also counted lower salaries, stock prices, and dividends it believes will occur as part of the effect the bill would have on people. Overall, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday the measure could trim federal deficits by around $305 billion. But $204 billion of that would come from improving IRS tax collections, which will be real if it occurs, but the nonpartisan agency does not count in its formal scoring of the bill’s impact. In a bow to dominant voter concerns about gasoline prices and overall consumer costs, Democrats call the bill the Inflation Reduction Act. Yet its impact on the nation’s worst bout with inflation in four decades seems likely to be limited. The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated the measure would “very slightly increase inflation until 2024 and decrease inflation thereafter,” though the changes would be “statistically indistinguishable from zero.” McConnell said that study showed the Democrats’ bill would “actually increase inflation in the short term and do nothing for inflation in the long term.” Democrats have cited a Moody’s Analytics report saying the bill would “nudge the economy and inflation in the right direction.” And they distributed a letter by five former Treasury secretaries, including Henry Paulson Jr., who served under GOP President George W. Bush, saying the measure would strengthen the economy, “lower costs for families, and fight inflation.” That battlefield suggests Republican amendments are likely on the subject of prices. One could imagine a proposal preventing the bill from taking effect unless inflation, or gasoline prices, fall to certain levels. Democratic leaders are trying this week to unify rank-and-file senators against such plans. The GOP could also try to renew immigration restrictions imposed by President Donald Trump that cited the pandemic as a reason to exclude migrants, an issue that sharply divides Democrats. And they might seek to delete tax credits aimed at encouraging alternative energy and that favor companies that pay union-scale wages. Republished with
Unexpected deal would boost Biden Administration pledge on climate change
An unexpected deal reached by Senate Democrats would be the most ambitious action ever taken by the United States to address global warming and could help President Joe Biden come close to meeting his pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, experts said Thursday, as they sifted through a massive bill that revives action on climate change weeks after the legislation appeared dead. The deal would spend nearly $370 billion over ten years to boost electric vehicles, jump-start renewable energy such as solar and wind power, and develop alternative energy sources like hydrogen. The deal stunned lawmakers and activists who had given up hope that legislation could be enacted after West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin said he could not support the measure because of inflation concerns. While analysts were still studying the 725-page bill, the deal announced late Wednesday includes a long-term extension of clean energy tax credits that “could plausibly put the U.S. on track to reduce emissions by 40% in 2030,″ said Ben King, associate director of the Rhodium Group, an independent research firm. Additional action by the Biden administration and Democratic-controlled states could “help close the rest of the gap to the target of a 50-52% cut in emissions by 2030,″ King said. But approval of the bill is far from certain in a 50-50 Senate, where support from every Democrat will be needed to overcome unanimous Republican opposition. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who forced changes in earlier versions of the plan, declined to reveal her stance Thursday. In the narrowly divided House, Democrats can lose no more than four votes and prevail on a possible party-line vote. Still, Biden called the bill “historic” and urged quick passage. “We will improve our energy security and tackle the climate crisis — by providing tax credits and investments for energy projects,″ he said in a statement, adding that the bill “will create thousands of new jobs and help lower energy costs in the future.″ Environmental groups and Democrats also hailed the legislation. “This is an 11th-hour reprieve for climate action and clean energy jobs, and America’s biggest legislative moment for climate and energy policy,″ said Heather Zichal, CEO of America’s Clean Power, a clean energy group. “Passing this bill sends a message to the world that America is leading on climate and sends a message at home that we will create more great jobs for Americans in this industry,″ added Zichal, a former energy adviser to President Barack Obama. Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president of the League of Conservation Voters, summed up her reaction in a single word: “Wow!” Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., tweeted that she was “stunned, but in a good way.″ Manchin, who chairs the Senate energy panel, insisted that he had not changed his mind after he told Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer two weeks ago that he could not support the bill because of inflation concerns. “There should be no surprises. I’ve never walked away from anything in my life,″ he told reporters on a Zoom call from West Virginia, where he is recovering from COVID-19. Manchin called the bill an opportunity “to really give us an energy policy with security that we need for our nation” while also driving down inflation and high gasoline prices. The bill, which Manchin dubbed the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,” includes $300 billion for deficit reduction, as well as measures to lower prescription drug prices and extend subsidies to help Americans who buy health insurance on their own. Besides investments in renewable energy like wind and solar power, the bill includes incentives for consumers to buy energy-efficient appliances such as heat pumps and water heaters, electric vehicles, and rooftop solar panels. The bill creates a $4,000 tax credit for purchases of used electric vehicles and up to $7,500 for new EVs. The tax credit includes income limits for buyers and caps on sticker prices of new EVs — $80,000 for pickups, SUVs, and vans and $55,000 for smaller vehicles. A $25,000 limit would be set on used vehicles. Even with the restrictions, the credits should help stimulate already rising electric vehicle sales, said Jessica Caldwell, senior analyst for Edmunds.com. Electric vehicles accounted for about 5% of new vehicle sales in the U.S. in the first half of the year and are projected to reach up to 37% by 2030. The bill also invests over $60 billion in environmental justice priorities, including block grants to address disproportionate environmental and public health harms related to pollution and climate change in poor and disadvantaged communities. Beverly Wright, executive director of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, called the bill a step forward but said she was concerned about tax credits for “polluting industries” such as coal, oil, and gas. “We need bolder action to achieve environmental and climate justice for ourselves and future generations,″ she said. The bill would set a fee on excess methane emissions by oil and gas producers while offering up to $850 million in grants to industry to monitor and reduce methane. The bill’s mixture of tax incentives, grants, and other investments in clean energy, transportation, energy storage, home electrification, agriculture, and manufacturing “makes this a real climate bill,″ said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. “The planet is on fire. This is enormous progress. Let’s get it done.” But not all environmental groups were celebrating. The deal includes promises by Schumer and other Democratic leaders to pursue permitting reforms that Manchin called “essential to unlocking domestic energy and transmission projects,″ including a controversial natural gas pipeline planned in his home state and Virginia. More than 90% of the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline has been completed, but the project has been delayed by court battles and other issues. The pipeline should be “at the top of the heap” for federal approval, Manchin said and is a good example of why permitting reform is needed to speed energy project approvals. Manchin, a longtime supporter of coal and other fossil fuels, said environmental reviews of such major projects should be concluded within two years instead of lasting up
Joe Manchin, Chuck Schumer report abrupt deal on health, energy, taxes
In a startling turnabout, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Joe Manchin announced Wednesday they had reached an expansive agreement that had eluded them for months on health care, energy and climate issues, taxes on higher earners and corporations, and federal debt reduction. The two Democrats said the Senate would vote on the wide-ranging measure next week, setting up President Joe Biden and Democrats for an unexpected victory in the runup to November congressional elections in which their control of Congress is in peril. A House vote would come afterward, perhaps later in August. Unanimous Republican opposition in both chambers seems certain. Just hours earlier, the expectation was that Schumer, D-N.Y., and Manchin, D-W.Va., were at loggerheads and headed toward far narrower package that Manchin was insisting be limited to curbing pharmaceutical prices and extending federal health care subsidies. Earlier Wednesday, numerous Democratic senators had said they were all but resigned to the more modest legislation. The reversal was stunning, and there was no immediate explanation for Manchin’s abrupt willingness to back a bolder, broader measure. Since last year, the West Virginian had used his pivotal vote in the 50-50 Senate to force Biden and Democrats to abandon far more ambitious and expensive versions of the package. He dragged them through months of negotiations in which leaders’ concessions to shrink the legislation proved fruitless, antagonizing the White House and most congressional Democrats. “This is the action the American people have been waiting for. This addresses the problems of today — high health care costs and overall inflation — as well as investments in our energy security for the future,” Biden said in a statement. He added, “If enacted, this legislation will be historic, and I urge the Senate to move on this bill as soon as possible and for the House to follow as well.” Tellingly, Democrats were calling the measure “The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” because of its provisions aimed at helping Americans cope with this year’s dramatically rising consumer costs. Polls show that inflation, embodied by gasoline prices that surpassed $5 per gallon before easing, has been voters’ chief concern. For months, Manchin’s opposition to proposed larger packages has been premised in part on his worry that they would fuel inflation. The measure also seemed to offer something for many Democratic constituencies. It dangled tax hikes on the wealthy and big corporations and environmental initiatives for progressives. And Manchin, an advocate for the fossil fuels his state produces, said the bill would invest in technologies for carbon-based and clean energy while also reducing methane and carbon emissions. Manchin said the new measure “would dedicate hundreds of billions of dollars to deficit reduction by adopting a tax policy that protects small businesses and working-class Americans while ensuring that large corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share in taxes.” The overall proposal is far more modest than the $3.5 trillion package Biden asked Democrats to push through Congress last year, and the pared-down, roughly $2 trillion version that the House approved last November after Manchin insisted on shrinking it. Even then, Manchin shot down that smaller measure in December, asserting it would fuel inflation and was loaded with budget gimmicks. In a summary that provided scant detail, Democrats said Wednesday their proposal would raise $739 billion over the decade in new revenue. That included $313 billion from a 15% corporate minimum tax that a Manchin statement suggested would affect only “billion-dollar companies or larger.” The agreement also contains $288 billion the government would save from curbing pharmaceutical prices, $124 billion from beefing up IRS tax enforcement, and $14 billion from taxing some “carried interest” profits earned by partners in entities like private equity or hedge funds. The measure would spend $369 billion on energy and climate change initiatives and $64 billion to extend federal subsidies for three more years for some people buying private health insurance. Those subsidies, which lower people’s premiums, would otherwise expire at the end of this year. That would leave $306 billion for debt reduction, an effort Manchin has been demanding. While a substantial sum, that’s a small fraction of the trillions in cumulative deficits the government is projected to amass over the coming decade. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who backed Manchin last year in insisting on making the legislation less expensive but objected to proposals to raise tax rates, was still reviewing the agreement, said spokeswoman Hannah Hurley. The spokeswoman referred a reporter to Sinema comments last year supporting a corporate minimum tax. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the Democratic agreement would be “devastating to American families and small businesses. Raising taxes on job creators, crushing energy producers with new regulations, and stifling innovators looking for new cures will only make this recession worse, not better.” But if Democrats can hold their troops together, GOP opposition would not stop them. The key is Democratic unity. They can prevail if they lose no more than four votes in the House and remain solidly united in the 50-50 Senate, where Vice President Kamala Harris can cast the tie-breaking vote. “Rather than risking more inflation with trillions in new spending, this bill will cut the inflation taxes Americans are paying, lower the cost of health insurance and prescription drugs, and ensure our country invests in the energy security and climate change solutions we need to remain a global superpower through innovation rather than elimination,” Manchin said. Schumer and Manchin said Democratic leaders’ proposals this fall to revamp permitting procedures would help infrastructure like pipelines and export facilities “be efficiently and responsibly built to deliver energy safely around the country and to our allies.” Collin O’Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, hailed Manchin’s announcement. “This agreement affirms that we can address the climate crisis, lower costs for consumers, lift up frontline and rural communities, and invest in made-in-America jobs and clean energy innovation,” O’Mara said. Sierra Club Legislative Director Melinda Pierce took a more cautious approach. “We are eager to see text
GOP, Dem Senate bargainers divided over gun deal details
Democratic and Republican senators were at odds Thursday over how to keep firearms from dangerous people as bargainers struggled to finalize details of a gun violence compromise in time for their self-imposed deadline of holding votes in Congress next week. Lawmakers said they remained divided over how to define abusive dating partners who would be legally barred from purchasing firearms. Disagreements were also unresolved over proposals to send money to states that have “red flag” laws that let authorities temporarily confiscate guns from people deemed dangerous by courts, and to other states for their own violence prevention programs. The election-year talks have seemed headed toward agreement, with both parties fearing punishment by voters if Congress doesn’t react to the carnage of last month’s mass shootings. A total of 31 people were slain at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, and an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. An outline of a deal has been endorsed by President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a lead GOP bargainer, seemed visibly unhappy as he left Thursday’s closed-door session after nearly two hours, saying he was flying home. “This is the hardest part because at some point, you just got to make a decision. And when people don’t want to make a decision, you can’t accomplish the result. And that’s kind of where we are right now,” Cornyn said. “I’m not frustrated, I’m done,” he added, though he said he was open to continued discussions. Lawmakers have said a deal must be completed and written into legislative language by week’s end if Congress is to vote by next week. It begins a July 4 recess after that. Leaders want votes by then because Washington has a long record of talking about reacting to mass shootings, only to see lawmakers’ and voters’ interest fade quickly over time. Other bargainers seemed more optimistic, saying much of the overall package has been agreed to and aides were drafting bill language. “A deal like this is difficult,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said when the meeting ended. “It comes with a lot of emotions, it comes with political risk to both sides. But we’re close enough that we should be able to get there.” The measure would impose just small-scale curbs on firearms. It lacks proposals by Biden and Democrats to prohibit assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones used in Buffalo and Uvalde, or to raise the legal age for purchasing assault rifles from 18 to 21. Even so, it would be Congress’ most robust move against gun violence since 1993. A ban lawmakers enacted that year on assault weapons took effect in 1994 and expired after a decade. Scores of high-profile mass shootings since have yielded little from Washington but partisan deadlock, chiefly due to Republicans blocking virtually any new restrictions. Federal law bars people convicted of domestic violence against a spouse from acquiring guns, but leaves a loophole for other romantic relationships. Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates firearms curbs, says 31 states bar convicted domestic abusers from buying firearms, including 19 that cover violent dating partners. Senators have disagreed over how to define such relationships, with Republicans working against a broad provision. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, the other lead GOP negotiator, said bargainers would use some state statutes as their guide, though their laws vary. “You need to make sure that you’re capturing everyone that actually beat” up their girlfriends, said Murphy, a Democrat. In addition, 19 states and the District of Columbia have “red flag” laws. Cornyn and the other lead bargainer, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., represent states that do not, and it is unclear how money in the bill would be divided among them. Senators have not said what the measure’s overall price tag will be, though people following the talks have said they expect it to range around $15 billion or $20 billion. Lawmakers are looking for budget cuts to pay for those costs. Twenty senators, 10 from each party, agreed to the outlines of a compromise measure last weekend. Top bargainers have labored ever since to translate it into details. The framework includes access to the juvenile records of gun buyers age 18 to 20. Both shooters in Buffalo and Uvalde were 18, and both used AR-15 style automatic rifles, which can load high-capacity magazines. The plan also includes added spending for mental health and school safety programs, tougher penalties for gun trafficking, and requirements that slightly more gun dealers obtain federal firearms licenses. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
