Mediaboss Marketing

60 votes were needed on a pair of procedural motions to end Democratic filibusters, but each failed on a 53-39 tally.

READ: Keystone debate ends with Democrats' ire

Democrats who voted against moving to a final vote on the bill said they were frustrated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell prevented debate and votes on amendments during a tense late-night session on Thursday that short-circuited what otherwise appeared to be actual bipartisan progress on the contentious issue.

"I'm very disappointed," Sen. Tom Carper, D-Delaware, a Keystone supporter, said as he headed to the floor to vote no. "I'm still not sure why that happened."

The vote was significant for Democrats who pointed to it as proof Republicans will need to reach across the aisle to get things done.

"Sen. McConnell promised Democrats an open amendment process and a full-throated debate on the Keystone pipeline and we are holding him to that promise," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, a Keystone opponent. "Trying to muzzle the debate by refusing to allow Democrats even one minute to advocate for their amendment and then simply refusing to hold votes on dozens of amendments is not remotely an open process."

Republicans saw it differently. They pointed to the more than two dozen votes on amendments from both parties as evidence they are running a much more accommodating Senate than the one they faced when they were in the minority for the last several years.

"We've had a lot of floor discussion. We've considered Democrat and Republican amendments," McConnell said before the vote.

"I'm calling on all of my colleagues -- especially the co-sponsors of this bipartisan bill, especially those who've supported Keystone without any amendments in the past -- to vote for jobs and progress tonight, not the kind of gridlock American voters just rejected so emphatically," he said.

Only four of the nine Democrats who voted with Republicans to begin debate voted with them to end it. They were Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.

Here is the original post:
Democrats block Keystone XL bill

Swift Senate approval of legislation to expedite the Keystone XL pipeline ran into trouble Monday after Democrats temporarily blocked the measure.

In the first notable test of Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell's leadership, key Democratic senators said they were protesting what they viewed as the majority leader's strong-arm tactics in bringing the three-week congressional debate over the pipeline to an end.

These Democrats support the pipeline. Their votes were needed to overcome a filibuster from other Democrats, but several withheld their support Monday to protest McConnell's tactics.

The vote was 53 to 39, shy of the 60-vote threshold needed to advance the measure. Four Democrats supported the legislation, but several others who had supported it as recently as last fall voted no. A subsequent vote also failed by the same margin. The Republican leader switched his vote to no in a procedural move that will allow him bring the bill back for a do-over vote in the days ahead.

The setback may be temporary. The pipeline's chief backers suggested that cooler heads would prevail and that another vote would be attempted after Democrats got the chance to vent their frustrations with the Republican leader.

This is really disappointing, McConnell, of Kentucky, said before the vote. It's about time to bring the Keystone debate to a positive conclusion, and we'll do that soon.

The episode was an embarrassing setback for the new majority leader, who has made passage of the Keystone bill a top priority of the new Republican-led Congress.

Complicating matters was the absence of key Republican senators, including Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who was making a campaign fundraising swing through California as a potential presidential contender.

The maneuver provides an early example of how the Democrats intend to use their minority status in Congress to force Republicans to the negotiating table or to derail GOP bills.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, indicated that Democratic objections were no surprise, saying some in the party wanted to slow-roll the thing all throughout. She vowed to work across the aisle to reach an agreement with Democrats to vote on more of their amendments before bringing discussion to a close.

Read more here:
Democrats block Keystone bill in setback for Senate Republicans

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., announces he will vote to pass the health care reform bill after President Obama agreed to sign an executive order reaffirming the ban on the use of federal funds to provide abortions, March 21, 2010. Alex Brandon/AP hide caption

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., announces he will vote to pass the health care reform bill after President Obama agreed to sign an executive order reaffirming the ban on the use of federal funds to provide abortions, March 21, 2010.

This week, Congress returns with House leaders vowing to revisit the anti-abortion bill they pulled off the floor last week. The ban on abortions after 20 weeks was withdrawn when it appeared there weren't enough Republican votes to pass it.

Why did it need quite so many Republican votes? Because the GOP can no longer count on a contingent of Democrats to help out on abortion-related votes.

That was obvious last week, on Thursday, when the leaders brought out a backup bill relating to federal funding for abortion (which is already illegal). It was the 42nd anniversary of the abortion-permitting Roe v. Wade decision, and it looked bad not to mark the occasion.

The backup bill did pass, but it had to do so with only three Democrats supporting it out of the current 188 in the House. And that speaks volumes about how the House has changed since President Obama was inaugurated.

When Obama took office, there were scores of Democrats in Congress who were anti-abortion and who regularly voted with the Republicans on abortion-related matters especially abortion funding.

The most visible example in recent years came on Nov. 7, 2009, during floor consideration of the bill that would become the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (better known as Obamacare).

The Democrats' anti-abortion faction then was led by Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak. After weeks of negotiating with House leaders and the White House, Stupak still insisted on a separate roll call vote regarding the impact the bill would have on abortion. He wanted it to be explicit that nothing in the new law would pay for abortions or pay for health insurance plans that covered abortions.

It was a sticky issue, and if not resolved it threatened to deny the House leaders and the Obama administration the health care law that was within their grasp.

Follow this link:
Abortion Vote Shows How Much Democrats' World Has Changed

Democrats successfully blocked the Keystone XL pipeline Monday, launching a filibuster in the Senate that keeps the long-delayed project on ice for at least the near term while Republicans try to figure out whether they can revive the bill.

We hit our first little bump in the road back to regular order, but weve got to roll with some things, said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who was in charge of shepherding the bill through the chamber.

Democratic leaders, who oppose the pipeline, nonetheless said they were filibustering in order to continue the debate and to earn the chance to vote on more amendments to the bill.

PHOTOS: Bang for your buck: Best handguns under $500

They accused Republicans of trying to shut down debate too quickly and said the two weeks the Senate devoted to the issue werent enough. The Senate has voted on two dozen amendments more than the chamber considered in all of 2014, when it was under Democratic control.

Still, Democratic leaders said Republicans should be held to the standard set by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, who pledged to allow a more freewheeling process.

Trying to muzzle the debate by refusing to allow Democrats even one minute to advocate for their amendment and then simply refusing to hold votes on dozens of other amendments is not a remotely open process, said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat. Democrats are seeking to improve this bill for middle-class families, while Republicans are working to preserve it as a special interest giveaway to foreign oil and foreign steel companies.

Republicans fell six votes shy of the 60 needed to end the filibuster. Four Republicans and two Democrats who were co-sponsors of the Keystone bill were absent. If these senators had been present, the vote might have passed.

Three other Democrats Sens. Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, Robert P. Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania and Jon Tester of Montana who voted for the Keystone pipeline two months ago reversed themselves and voted to filibuster it Monday.

The Keystone pipeline would carry oil from Canadas tar sands to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico. But the project has taken on a symbolism far outstripping its economic or environmental impact.

Excerpt from:
Democrats filibuster Keystone, force Republicans to rethink strategy, amendments

Democrats are renewing a public battle over the intent of a special House committee's probe of the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi consulate attack, saying Republicans have intentionally excluded them from witness interviews and other key aspects of the investigation.

In a letter sent Friday to the Benghazi committee's chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), top Democrat Elijah Cummings of Maryland also cited two instances in which the committee dismissed testimony from witnesses interviewed only by Republicans that contradicted allegations made by Republican members in public over the State Department's cooperation with an independent review of the attack.

Cummings asked Gowdy to delay a planned public hearing set for Tuesday until both parties agree on a formal set of rules to govern the investigation, including guaranteeing that any witness interviews are conducted jointly by both parties and that any decisions to subpoena further witnesses and documents can be debated publicly.

Cummings said the panel should mirror the example of the House Intelligence Committee instead of the House Oversight Committee, previously led by Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Vista), which he accused of manipulating testimony "to promote false political narratives."

"In order for this committee to transcend politics,' as you put it, we must break significantly from [that] model," Cummings wrote. "We should work together to go where the facts take us, and we should hold joint meetings, interviews and discussions with potential witnesses."

Republicans are dismissing the Democrats' complaints as simply picking a fight over process where they lack a substantive case to end the investigation.

In a statement, Gowdy spokesman Jamal Ware said there was no precedent in similar investigatory committees for a requirement that both parties interview witnesses at the same time, and that Republicans "will talk to Benghazi sources with or without the Democrats present just as they are welcome to talk to sources with or without Republicans present."

Chairman Gowdy has operated the Benghazi Committee in a more-than-fair and fact-based manner, Ware said, adding that Gowdy has offered to establish rules that are much more generous than those that govern other congressional committees. He will continue to work to address any legitimate minority concerns. He will not, however, allow the committees investigation to be hamstrung by politics.

House Speaker John A. Boehner called for a special select committee to be formed on the Benghazi attacks last May, accusing the White House of withholding documents from other congressional panels in what he called a "flagrant violation of trust." He later dismissed an Intelligence Committee report that found no wrongdoing by administration officials, saying that it was the Select Committee that would produce the "definitive" report. The House voted to continue the investigation in the new Congress as part of a larger package of rules approved on the first day of the 2015 session.

Democrats had debated whether to participate in the panel at all, initially seeking commitment on ground rules before doing so but ultimately agreeing to appoint members to act as a watchdog. Subsequent attempts to reach an agreement over rules, which included a meeting with Boehner in December, have failed.

Read the original post:
As House Benghazi committee reconvenes, Democrats renew complaints