The Washington Independent » Joe Lieberman

Udall wants jobs bill to get full hearing in Seante

admin — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:35:19 +0000

If anyone thought President Obama’s jobs bill was going to slide through the Senate before hitting trouble in the House, they were wrong. The Senate Tuesday couldn’t get enough support even for a debate.

With 60 votes needed to open debate, the measure received 50.

From The Hill:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, supported (Harry) Reid’s bid to begin debate on Obama’s jobs package but voiced misgivings over its substance.

“The bottom line here is that I don’t believe the potential in this act for creating jobs justifies adding another $500 billion to our almost $15 trillion national debt,” Lieberman said.

“In fact, I think the most important thing we can do to improve our economy, reduce unemployment [and] create jobs is to bring our national debt under control.”

Lieberman endorsed the deficit-reduction plan crafted by the fiscal commission headed by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. He said he would vote against Obama’s jobs package as a whole if it came to a yes-or-no vote.

Senior White House officials said Tuesday they would work with Senate Democrats to divide the bill into pieces that would be more likely to pass.

Senator Mark Udall released this statement after the vote:

“President Obama’s proposal included reasonable ideas from both sides of the aisle to get Americans back to work and solidify our economic recovery. And it deserved to be taken seriously. I hoped that my colleagues in the Senate would listen to our constituents and come together to work out our differences. I’m disappointed they dismissed the proposal out of hand without even discussing its merits. We owed it to the American people to give the details in the proposal real reflection and open debate, not an ill-considered death by Senate rules.

“There were parts of the president’s proposal with which I didn’t personally agree, but I voted to consider the bill because our economy needs solutions, not partisan games. My office received an overwhelming number of telephone calls, emails and social media messages asking me to bridge the partisan divide for Coloradans who are struggling to find jobs. I’ll continue to work with my colleagues on any plan that creates jobs and gets our economy back on track.”

Before the vote, Colorado Democratic Party Chair Rick Palacio said this:

“Republicans campaigned on jobs last year, but we have yet to see any comprehensive plan from the GOP to put Americans back to work. Their inaction has gone on for too long, and today they can finally contribute to the effort to put Americans back to work. Coloradans looking for work can’t wait any longer.”

U.S. Senate moving on first Homeland Security authorization since 2003

admin — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:31:15 +0000

In a political climate where the most mundane of tasks often appear mired in complex partisan strategies designed to show one party or the other holding a strategic advantage, a U.S. Senate committee has managed something quite unusual. It has managed to come to agreement on the first authorization bill for Homeland Security since the department’s creation in 2003.

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee passed The Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2011 Wednesday, following a two-week consideration.

Since the Committee, which is led by Connecticut Independent U.S. Rep. Joe Lieberman and Maine Republican U.S. Rep. Susan Collins, is somewhat limited in its region of authority, the bill offers a narrow pathway that is likely not to force it before additional committees in advance of a floor vote. For example, the bill does not really take up the highly-controversial matters surrounding the TSA, which falls under the purview of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Essentially, the bill focuses on streamlining the DHS. Numerous amendments were offered — some more radical than others — and the proposal was ultimately adopted on a bipartisan vote of 9-to-1 with 31 amendments.

Joe Lieberman

“The Department of Homeland Security is operating at a higher level now than at any time in the past,” Lieberman said. “But it continues to be a challenge to manage. This authorization bill translates worthy programs into statute, eliminates others, and nips and tucks to find cost savings to help the Department continue to mature and meet its missions more effectively.

“Given the current fiscal environment, I am particularly proud of a series of provisions to bring greater discipline to the Department’s acquisitions process, which could in turn save billions in taxpayer dollars now lost to waste, fraud, abuse or just plain failure.”

While the Committee was marking up the bill, Lieberman had said he viewed this process, given the number of years that had passed since DHS was created, as an opportunity to take a hard look at all the separate offices under the department, “to eliminate offices that really have not functioned or functioned well and to try to consolidate in other ways.”

It appears the Committee took that goal to heart.

The bill establishes a process for review of proposed DHS acquisitions and investments, and directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to reduce overhead costs of DHS field offices located near each other at least 5 percent by consolidating buildings and other support functions.

It eliminates the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement and the Office of Cargo Security Policy. It also eliminates the Border and Transportation Security Directorate, the Office for Domestic Preparedness, and the Office of State and Local Government Coordination, which were abolished through administrative reorganizations. In addition, DHS will be required to consolidate its Washington headquarters at St. Elizabeths before fiscal year 2018.

The National Protection and Programs Directorate would be renamed as the Infrastructure Protection and Resilience Directorate, and the newly named organization would acquire the Federal Protective Service and Office of Infrastructure Protection.

An Office of International Travel Security and Screening would be created from a combination of U.S. Visit, the Visa Waiver Program, and the Screening Coordination Office to identify and prevent terrorist travel in or to the U.S. An electronic system would also be created that would allow for remote viewing of visa applications and to notify airlines when a traveler’s visa for entry into the U.S. has been cancelled.

Legal authorization for DHS’s intelligence activities would be provided under the National Security Act, and would codify an earlier executive order that gave the DHS Secretary authority to manage access to classified information for state, local, tribal and private sector entities. In addition, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis would be provided the ability to directly hire its own employees — an authority long since granted to others within the civilian intelligence community.

A more detailed outline of the bill, provided by the Senate Committee, is embedded below.

Susan Collins

“DHS is a more effective department than it once was. But the Department must continue to mature and reach its full potential. This first-ever authorization bill is another step toward that goal,” Collins said.

“In light of the broader fiscal crisis we face, we have produced a fiscally responsible bill. The new proposals — such as the Office of International Travel Security and Screening and improvements to the DHS acquisition system — are intended to enhance performance, consolidate functions and save money in the long run. … We want real savings — not shell-game savings.”

But all of this being said, a turf battle continues to rage between committees, especially in the U.S. House, where the Homeland Security Committee has pushed to consolidate its oversight of the department. But the House Committee Chairman, U.S. Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, appears to be working in tandem with his Senate counterparts on scope and objective of the authorization.

“I have been working in close coordination with Senators Lieberman and Collins as both committees move toward our shared goal of reauthorizing DHS … Within the next several weeks, I will introduce and the House Homeland Security Committee will mark up a DHS authorization bill. I tend the legislation to be targeted to reduce inefficiencies and waste, consolidate functions and improve the acquisition process, while strengthening valuable homeland security programs,” King said.

Department of Homeland Security Authorization Bill 2011 Outline

Rubio taking a tough stance with Syria

admin — Wed, 11 May 2011 17:50:38 +0000

Sen. Marco Rubio has scheduled a press conference this morning alongside Sen. Joe Lieberman, reportedly to call for the U.S. to get tougher on Syria. #

Rubio appeared on CBS’s “The Early Show” this morning, and said the two senators would be putting forth a resolution calling for the US to sever ties with Syria and pull its diplomats out. He called on President Barack Obama declare that to take “the side of the Syrian people” and declare that the regime of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad is “no longer a legitimate one.” #

Rubio has previously called on the United States to “sever ties and recall the ambassador at once.” #

On April 29, President Obama signed an Executive Order imposing sanctions against senior Syrian officials and other government entities responsible for human rights abuses. And last Friday, the White House issued its strongest threat to Syria yet, saying it condemned and deplored the Syrian government’s use of violence in response to ongoing demonstrations. #

The United States believes that Syria’s deplorable actions toward its people warrant a strong international response. Absent significant change in the Syrian government’s current approach, including an end to the government’s killing of protestors and to the arrest and harassment campaigns of protestors and activists, coupled with a genuine political reform process responsive to the demands of the Syrian people, the United States and its international partners will take additional steps to make clear our strong opposition to the Syrian government’s treatment of its people.

“The United States should be the leading voice in the world condemning what’s happening in Syria. We should make it very clear whose side we’re on and we’re on the side of the Syrian people. The second thing that we need to clearly point out and I hope the President will do … is saying that the Assad regime is no longer a legitimate one. Any time the government has to use government forces and army forces to kill unarmed civilians in order to hold on to power … that makes them illegitimate and that’s what’s happening in Syria. And I hope the United States will be a clear voice saying that,” Rubio said. #

Rubio said that he expects the resolution to have “widespread support” and that he hopes the administration will step up to do more. When questioned about whether he thought it would evolve into a military issue, Rubio said, “I don’t think anyone is advocating military action.” #

Rubio also touched on the recent death of Osama bin Laden, saying he had not seen the photos of bin Laden’s body, but had no doubt that he was dead. “If bin Laden’s not dead, why doesn’t he produce a new video proving that he’s not dead? We need to move beyond that right now…I understand why people are curious about [the pictures] but seeing them isn’t the important issue.” #

‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal fails in the U.S. Senate, 57-40 vote

Patrick Caldwell — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 22:17:53 +0000

The U.S. Senate failed to file cloture on the National Defense Authorization Act, which included an amendment to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” the military’s ban on allowing openly gay service members in the armed forces. The bill was blocked from proceeding to full debate by 57-40 margin. All Republicans voted against cloture expect for Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), while newly elected Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) sided with Republicans in opposing the bill.

Collins has been the prime negotiator for moderate Republicans to possibly cross the aisle to support the repeal. Other Republicans, such as Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (D-Alaska), had previously indicated that they may support ending the ban on openly gay service members.

Collins was engaged in extensive discussions with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) over how to bring the bill to the Senate floor. Those conversations hit a wall when Reid refused Collins’ request that the bill be open subject to full debate without a limit on amendments. Reid was concerned that would allow conservative Republicans to hijack the debate and delay the vote.

Collins may have supported the measure today, but she was visibly displeased throughout the process. Washington Independent alum Elise Foley reported for the Huffington Post:

Her vote came after she angrily roamed the Senate floor, rolling up text of the legislation and waving it around, smacking it on Sen. Dick Durbin’s desk and hitting him on the arm with it.

“I’m extremely disappointed that the Senate majority leader walked away from negotiations,” Collins said in a press conference held with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) following the vote. But there may still be hope for the bill to pass during the lame-duck session if Reid can negotiate favorable debate terms with the Republicans who support the bill.
“I am convinced there are 60, or even 61 or 62 votes to repeal ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell,’” Collins said. In addition, Lieberman tweeted on Thursday afternoon after the failed vote that the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal will be brought up as a standalone bill during the lame-duck session.

Polls have consistently shown that Americans support repealing the policy, with two-thirds of Americans favoring the rights of gays and lesbians to serve in the military, according to a Gallup poll released Thursday. At the request of Congress, the Obama administration recently completed a year-long review on the impacts of repealing the policy, and the report indicated there would be almost no risk in ending the discriminatory policy, with the majority of service members believing repeal would either have positive or no impacts on their units.

What does Kirk’s early Senate entry mean for the DREAM Act?

Elise Foley — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 21:13:24 +0000

Mark Kirk, the Republican senator-elect from Illinois, could be sworn in as early as Nov. 29 due to special circumstances regarding his seat, which used to belong to President Obama but was handed over to Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) when Obama took office. Kirk will serve in the lame-duck session in a seat that used to be a reliable Democrat vote — meaning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will have more difficulty passing the DREAM Act in a the lame-duck session.

Reid claims his caucus is behind him on the act, which would give some undocumented students and military service members a change to gain legal status to remain in the country. “We all support the DREAM Act,” he said on Univision in an interview that aired Sunday. “I just need a handful of Republicans to help me.”

Kirk has said he wouldn’t, despite exhaustive efforts by DREAM Act supporters to convince him otherwise. “This is not the time to do that,” Kirk said in a debate.

How important is Kirk’s vote for passing the DREAM Act? It depends on who Reid means when he says “we all support the DREAM Act.” There are 59 senators who caucus with the Democrats and 41 Republicans. Kirk will change those numbers to 58 and 42. Reid needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster if he hopes to pass the DREAM Act.

If Reid’s right about his caucus, he would only need two Republicans to vote “yes” on the DREAM Act. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) co-sponsored the bill and would almost certainly vote for the it as a standalone measure, although he voted in September to filibuster the defense authorization bill that included it. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) has also said he would vote for the act as a standalone bill.

But if either of them or any Democrats fall through, other Republicans are tougher to pin down. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who was one of the original sponsors of the DREAM Act, seems likely to vote against it now because he favors a borders-first approach to tackling immigration problems. “The American people want the government to secure our borders, create jobs and reduce the deficit.” Hatch said when he announced plans to vote against the DREAM Act’s inclusion in the defense authorization bill.

Lugar, Hatch and Bennett were two of twelve Republicans who voted for the DREAM Act in 2007. The others still in Senate — Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) — have been vague about whether they would support the measure as a standalone this year.

When the bill came up as a possible addition to the defense authorization bill, a few Democrats said they were not sure they would support it this time around. Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told The Hill in September they might vote “no” on the DREAM Act.

What Was Lost in the Defense Bill Filibuster

Elise Foley — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:18:50 +0000

Most of the stories about the Republican filibuster yesterday of the defense authorization bill have focused on two amendments it squashed: a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and a planned addition of the DREAM Act, which would provide legal status to some young people in exchange for military service or school.

But Mother Jones points out, the defense authorization bill has about 3,500 other provisions — many of them important changes to the agenda for the Department of Defense.

It’s worth reading the full list, but here are a few notable provisions:

Revamping US Military and Foreign Policy

No permanent military bases in Afghanistan.

Report on long-term costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

National Military Strategic Plan to Counter Iran.

Anti-Corruption

Standards and certification for private security contractors.

Inclusion of bribery in disclosure requirements of the Federal awardee performance and integrity information system.

Environmental Progress

Report identifying hybrid or electric propulsion systems and other fuel-saving technologies for incorporation into tactical motor vehicles.

Senators said they will have to eventually pass the bill — it just may be in a lame duck session. The Senate has passed a defense authorization bill for the past 48 years.

“We have to proceed to consider the defense authorization bill, because our military needs it,” Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said yesterday. “We need it for authorization of critical military equipment for our troops to fight on our behalf. … We’ve got to take this bill up, it’s our national responsibility.”

It’s unlikely Harry Reid would again attempt to attach the DREAM Act to the bill, but the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell amendment will be an issue in the future. It was added by the Senate Armed Services Committee and is already a part of the defense authorization bill.

That does not mean the repeal would kill the bill in the future, though. Under different debate rules, Republicans could offer an amendment striking the repeal from the defense authorization bill. And it could find additional support: Some Republicans, such as Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) have said they would vote in support of the repeal, even though they voted to filibuster the bill moving to the Senate floor yesterday.

Who Would the Tax Increases Hurt?

Annie Lowrey — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:58:59 +0000

Congress is considering changes to tax rates.

This week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with the Democrats, addressed a local chapter of the Chamber of Commerce in Middlesex, Conn. “In our current economic situation, we cannot risk the economic headwinds that would be caused by tax increases,” he said. “We need to keep as much money as possible in people’s pockets and business’s bank accounts.”

[Economy1] The senator continued: “I know that many people, including the president, have argued that the tax cuts should not be continued for people making more than $200,000 a year, but to me these are the people we need to be using their income to spend and invest to spur growth and job creation. The fact is that the top three percent of American income-earners account for 25 percent of the consumption in our economy.” He also argued that the tax increases would hurt small businesses — which, as the traditional engine of job growth in the United States, have created about two-thirds of the country’s new jobs over the past 15 years.

With that, Lieberman declared which side he is on in the big economic debate roiling Washington now that Congress is back in session. On Dec. 31, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts expire, meaning all income tax rates will revert to higher levels unless Congress takes action before then. The White House pushed hard over the August recess for Congress to extend the tax cuts for lower- and middle-income earners, but to let the cuts expire for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and for households making more than $250,000 — the top 2.1 percent of filers. Many, though not all, Democrats agree with the plan. And Republicans have said no to any tax increases but need to let a Democratic proposal come to a vote to prevent all the Bush tax cuts — including cuts to the estate, capital gains and dividend taxes and an expansion of the child-care tax credit — from sunsetting.

The tussle — or, in President Obama’s terms, the “wrestling match” — is coming down to that two percent of tax filers and the $60 to $80 billion a year they would provide to the Treasury if their top marginal tax rate increased. The debate hinges on two central questions: What would the rich would do with their extra money, should the tax cuts stay in place? And what impact would those choices have on the economy?

Lieberman and Republicans are arguing that if Democrats hike taxes on the wealthy, they will ratchet back spending, hurting the recovery. “[The Obama tax plan] is a bad idea,” argues Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), for instance, saying raising taxes will cause more unemployment. “People are eager for reliable, well-paying jobs. Entrepreneurship provides those jobs. And entrepreneurs often pay taxes at the top marginal tax rates because they’ve worked their way up to those income levels.”

It’s not clear, however, that the rich spend the money they keep under lower income tax rates. There is economic evidence that the rich tend to spend tax rebates — checks that come in the mail, rather than incremental changes on a pay stub. Federal Reserve economists Julia Lynn Coronado, Joseph Lupton and Louise Sheiner, for instance, found that the rich spent more of their child-care tax credits in 2003 than poorer Americans did. But the same is generally not true for income taxes.

In this particular case, economists say that the wealthy probably would not spend the money, were the Bush cuts extended. “Policies that temporarily increased the after-tax income of people who are relatively well off would probably have little effect on their spending because they generally would be able finance their consumption out of their income or assets without such a change,” Douglas Elmendorf, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, said this year, finding tax cuts the least stimulative of 11 policy options. He argued that tax cuts would increase spending for lower-income workers, who have less in savings and tend to spend more of their paychecks anyway.

Economists from Moody’s Analytics, in an analysis of Federal Reserve data going back to 1989, came to the same conclusion. In a report released this week, Moody’s economists found that spending is far more impacted by the business cycle, such as the fluctuation of stock prices, than tax cuts.

Nevertheless, some Republicans argue that the money the rich save would still have a positive economic impact. Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), for instance, noted that people do not save money by burying it in their backyard. “Any person who saves money either puts in the bank…or they invest in a stock or a bond, equities usually,” he said. “Well, what is that investment [doing]? It is providing capital to business.”

He went on to argue that increased saving has a larger impact on employment than increased spending does. “Money that is saved [has] a direct impact on job creation, because it directly provides capital,” he said. It is true that saving provides capital to businesses. But, U.S. companies are currently sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash. Economists generally argue that businesses are not hiring workers due to uncertainty or, obviously, because consumers are not spending.

The bigger debate over the impact of the tax cuts centers around small businesses. Millions of small businesses use the individual, rather than corporate, tax process. If they make earnings of more than $200,000 or $250,000 a year, under the Obama proposal, their top marginal tax rate would go up.

Republicans, recognizing small businesses as crucial to job growth, have staunchly objected to Democratic plans to allow that to happen. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for instance, yesterday argued, “Only in Washington could someone propose a tax hike as an antidote to a recession. And this is no small tax hike. The tax hike the administration is proposing, according to the IRS, would apply to half of all small business income in this country. And an analysis by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that businesses that employ 20 to 250 people would be hardest hit. All told, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, hundreds of thousands of small businesses would see their taxes go up next year under the administration’s plan.”

The Joint Committee on Taxation does estimate (PDF) that 750,000 individual tax filings with business income — about 3 percent of all tax filings with business income — would see higher marginal rates. The problem is in sorting out whose filings those are. Business income filed on an individual return might stem from anything from a hedge fund to a lemonade stand to a person who makes money selling items on eBay. The number and kind of small businesses that might see taxes on their profits rise is impossible to determine without access to private IRS files.

Still, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, estimates that the tax hit would not be too high for most small businesses. For one, the marginal tax increase impacts earnings, not revenue. A business would need to be clearing more than $250,000 a year after salaries and other costs in order to see a tax hit. And then, it would likely be small. “For the $250,000 to $500,000 a year bracket,” Baker notes, “the estimated tax hit is $700. That isn’t enough to hire anyone.”

Other groups have also estimated that the impact would not be great. Citizens for Tax Justice, for instance, examined (PDF) “data on individuals who get more than half of their income from a business that they actively operate.” Only five percent would lose any portion of earnings — many of whom would be partners in law firms, hedge fund managers and accountants.

DISCLOSE Act Falls Short But Advocates Vow to Keep Fighting

Jesse Zwick — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:58:40 +0000

The Democrats’ move to invoke cloture on the DISCLOSE Act this afternoon fell short of the necessary 60 votes. The official tally ended up at 57-41, with every Republican voting against the motion. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was absent, and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ended up voting “no” as a procedural move in order to be able to call another vote on the bill in the future.

Immediately following the vote, Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan organization that works to reduce the influence of money in American politics, issued a statement that argued, “No one should be deluded by today’s vote into thinking this battle is over.” He vowed that efforts to pass the DISCLOSE Act would continue in September, at which point some of the objections raised by Republican Sens. Snowe and Collins of Maine and Sen. Brown of Massachusetts about the timing of the bill would no longer apply:

Senator Snowe, Collins and Brown all raised concerns about passing the DISCLOSE Act in a time frame that would allow the new law to be effective for the 2010 congressional elections.

That is no longer a practical possibility.

We again strongly urge Senators Snowe, Collins and Brown, and any other Republican Senator interested in government transparency, to work with Senate supporters of the DISCLOSE Act to reach an agreement that they can support and that will reflect the interests of the American people.

This is no time for any Senator who is serious about campaign finance disclosure laws and government transparency to abandon the effort to ensure that voters know who is spending money to influence their votes.

In other words, now that the bill will likely not be brought up for another vote until September, Democracy 21 is arguing that it will not become effective quickly enough to have a large impact on the 2010 congressional races. That said, the language in the bill currently states that the new disclosure requirements must go into effect 30 days after the law’s enactment, so a mid-September passage could have advertisers scrambling to comply during the last few weeks of the election cycle.

Democratic Caucus Just Shy of Sixty Votes on DISCLOSE Act

Jesse Zwick — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:33:09 +0000

Democrats might not reach 60 votes today in a cloture vote on the DISCLOSE Act, but they’re getting awfully close. Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-Conn.) spokesman just confirmed to Politico’s Ben Smith that while he will miss the vote today, he has promised Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he will vote in favor of cloture if the bill comes up for a vote again — a scenario that appears increasingly likely. Meanwhile, Greg Sargent reports that Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), long speculated to be wavering on the issue, is also a yes on cloture.

That leaves Senate Democrats where they’ve so often found themselves this past year — with 59 votes, one shy of breaking a Republican filibuster and opening debate.

Senate DISCLOSE Act Cloture Vote Update

Jesse Zwick — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:49:28 +0000

It’s all but official now that Democrats won’t reach 60 votes on today’s cloture vote on the DISCLOSE Act. Fox News reported that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will be absent attending a family member’s funeral and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) reiterated her opposition to the bill late yesterday. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) has yet to signal her position, though she has maintained that the Senate should be focusing on the economy at this time.

That’s not to say Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) won’t try again, however. Democrats feel the political momentum is on their side and may very well keep raising the issue between now and midterm elections in order to press their advantage.

UPDATE: Fox News initially reported that Sen. Lieberman was attending a friend’s funeral. They have issued a correction that states it was actually a family member’s funeral. This blog post has been updated to reflect that change.