From GovTrack: A review of the 2015–2016 Congress, the last Congress of the Obama Administration

A summary of the 114th Congress

- Click here for the article.

The 114th Congress, the session that ran from January 3, 2015 through January 3, 2017, was historic. Republicans regained control of the Senate for the first time in eight years. After four years in which Republicans controlled the House, President Obama for the first time faced a Congress where both chambers were run by the Republicans. Yet some pieces of meaningful legislation were still enacted, and there were many others which didn’t quite cross the finish line due to election-year caution or presidential vetoes, but should be viewed as trial runs for successful versions to come in 2017–18 under President Trump.

From the AP: READYING FOR TRUMP, CONGRESS FACES LAME DUCK TO-DO LIST

Expect a raucous finish to the 114th Congress.

- Click here for the article.

Congress still has some unfinished business before closing shop for the year, even as the focus shifts to the agenda of President-elect Donald Trump and unified Republican control of Congress and the White House in 2017.

Trump's election will reset the balance of power in Washington, but until noon on Jan. 20, President Barack Obama decides what can become law. Already, Obama priorities such as a controversial trade deal with Pacific nations and the long-stalled nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court are off the table. Tuesday's results were the final nails in the coffin.

But other fights, such as a GOP revolt over a move by Obama to impose workplace protections for gay and transgender employers of defense contractors — which has stalled the annual Pentagon policy measure — may be defused until next year. And working with Obama to wrap up more than $1 trillion worth of remaining agency budget bills seems likely to slip.

From the Hill: Vulnerable House freshmen passed most bills in decades, analysis finds

The list includes the Republican now holding Texas' only competitive congressional district.

- Click here for the article.

Three House Republicans facing competitive reelection races this year have gotten more of their bills passed than any other freshmen in decades, according to a new analysis.

Quorum, a D.C.-based data tracking firm, found that of all freshman lawmakers since 1989, Reps. John Katko (N.Y.), Martha McSally (Ariz.) and Will Hurd (Texas) were the top three for sponsoring the most bills that passed the House in their first terms.

Katko’s name was featured on 13 bills to pass the House in his first 20 months in office, the highest of any freshman lawmaker in Quorum’s analysis provided to The Hill.

McSally came in second with nine sponsored bills. Two of those measures became law, most prominently a bill to make former female World War II pilots eligible for inurnment at Arlington Cemetery.

Hurd, with eight bills to pass the House, is tied for the third-most bills with former Reps. Bobby Jindal (R), the ex-Louisiana governor, in the session of Congress that began in 2005, and Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) for the session that began in 2003.

House and Senate leadership frequently grant floor time to legislation authored by lawmakers in tough races for reelection. Those lawmakers can then tout the passage of those bills while campaigning back in their districts.

. . . Hurd is considered the most vulnerable of the three House lawmakers. He faces a rematch against former Democratic Rep. Pete Gallego in the southwestern, Hispanic-majority Texas district that the nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates as a “toss-up.”
Katko and McSally both hold an edge to win reelection despite representing districts that have swung toward Democrats in recent years.

One reason these freshmen have managed to get more of their bills passed may be a result of House GOP leaders granting them all subcommittee chairmanships at the start of this Congress.

Many of Hurd’s bills that made it to the House floor have dealt with information technology and cybersecurity, likely because of chairing a House Oversight subcommittee on information technology.

. . . GOP leaders promoted McSally and Hurd, in particular, as two of their best recruits during the 2014 election cycle. Both lawmakers add racial and gender diversity to the overwhelmingly white and male House GOP: Hurd is one of two African-Americans and McSally is one of 23 women in the 246-member conference.

For more on Hurd:

- Wikipedia.
- House website.
- GovTrack.

From Bloomberg: Sept. 11 Widow Sues Saudi Arabia Following Congress Override

The first lawsuit authorized by Congress related to 9/11 has been filed.

- Click here for the article.

A woman widowed when her husband was killed at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 sued the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia just two days after Congress enacted legislation allowing Americans to sue foreign governments for allegedly playing a role in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

Stephanie Ross DeSimone alleged the kingdom provided material support to al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, in a complaint filed Friday at a U.S. court in Washington. Her suit is also filed on behalf of the couple’s daughter. DeSimone was pregnant when Navy Commander Patrick Dunn was killed.

Fifteen of the 19 men who hijacked airliners used in the attack were Saudi nationals. One jet struck the Pentagon, seat of the U.S. military, two destroyed the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York while another crashed in a Pennsylvania field as its passengers fought back against the hijackers.

A U.S. commission that investigated the 2001 attacks said in a 2004 report that it “found no evidence that the Saudi government, as an institution, or senior officials within the Saudi government funded al-Qaeda.” Long-classified portions of a congressional inquiry that were released in July found the hijackers may have had help from some Saudi officials.

The kingdom has previously denied culpability. Its embassy didn’t immediately reply to an e-mailed message seeking comment on the suit.

An official at Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the state-run Saudi Press Agency on Sept. 29 that the U.S. Congress must correct the 9/11 bill to avoid “serious unintended consequences,” adding the law is of “great concern” to the Kingdom.

DeSimone, who is suing for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress, is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

The case is DeSimone v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 16-cv-1944, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).

More fallout:

- 9/11 bill is a global blunder that will weaken US efforts abroad.
- Congress Has Itself to Blame for 9/11 Bill.

Roll Call: House Easily Passes 10-Week Stopgap Spending Bill

They join the Senate - see story below.

- Click here for the article.

The House on a 342-85 vote easily passed a 10-week stopgap spending bill late Wednesday, clearing the measure for President Barack Obama’s signature with two days to spare before a government shutdown.

The Obama administration voiced support for passage of the continuing resolution in a statement of administration policy. The House was expected to adjourn later Wednesday and not return until after the November elections.

The House vote, as well as an earlier Senate vote of 72-26, were in contrast to weeks of battles over whether money to fight the Zika virus should be made available to Planned Parenthood locations in Puerto Rico and over emergency aid for stricken Flint, Michigan. Congressional leaders smoothed over a final impasse by committing to include financial help for Flint's contaminated water system in subsequent legislation expected to clear in the lame-duck session after the elections.

But it’s clear that as time ran out to get the stopgap spending bill to the president, other issues that were sticking points will pop up again in spending negotiations on tap for December.

“This short time frame will allow Congress to complete our annual appropriations work without jeopardizing important government functions,” House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers said of the CR, shortly before the chamber cleared the measure.

In addition to continuing fiscal 2016 levels for programs through Dec. 9 — though that level was knocked down by just under half a percent to fit under budget caps — the package also includes $1.1 billion in funding to respond to the Zika virus, $500 million in flood relief for Louisiana and other states, and full fiscal 2017 appropriations for military construction and veterans.

During floor debate, Rogers touted the fiscal 2017 Military Construction-VA bill, which he said if enacted would represent the first time since 2009 that lawmakers have pushed through a regular appropriations bill that resulted from a bicameral conference.

“It’s not perfect, but it ensures we meet our nation’s critical needs,” the Kentucky Republican said, adding, “At this point, it is what we must do to fulfill our congressional responsibility, to keep the lights on in our government.”

From the Washington Post: Senate passes bill to avert government shutdown after Flint deal struck

As usual, appropriations bills will not be passed in time for the new fiscal year, instead a continuing resolution will be passed.

For detail: What Is a Continuing Resolution?

Now the House must vote on it.

- Click here for the article.

The Senate cemented an agreement Wednesday to avoid an Oct. 1 government shutdown after House Republicans allowed a vote on federal aid to address the water crisis in Flint, Mich., removing a major obstacle in negotiations.

Senators voted 72-15 to pass a stopgap measure that will keep the government open until Dec. 9, giving appropriators time to pass 2017 spending bills. The measure also provides $1.1 billion in funds to address the Zika virus and $500 million in emergency flood relief.
Both the Zika and flood funding were subject to long and painstaking negotiations between majority Republicans and minority Democrats, but it was funding for Flint that threatened to push matters past the brink.

Democrats made clear earlier this week they would not support the spending bill unless Republicans moved to guarantee Flint aid, while GOP leaders countered the Senate had approved Flint aid earlier this month in a separate water projects bill.

The impasse was broken late Tuesday after House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) struck a deal allowing a vote to attach $170 million in Flint relief to the House version of the water bill. That bill is expected to pass late Wednesday; the stopgap spending measure is expected to pass shortly afterward.
Ryan, addressing the Economic Club of Washington Wednesday morning, said the amendment would “help unlock” the spending bill. “We should be able to move this through, I believe, before Friday,” he said.

By Wednesday morning, Senate Democrats were satisfied that, thanks to the House deal, Flint would be addressed once Congress returns after the Nov. 8 election.

“I am convinced that there is going to be help for Flint in the lame duck,” Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said on the Senate floor. “They’ve been waiting for help, they deserve help, and I am very happy it is going to come.”

Wednesday’s Senate votes capped weeks of frustration for Republicans, who complained that Democrats had engaged in bad-faith spending negotiations aimed at keeping vulnerable GOP incumbents in Washington rather than on the campaign trail.

From Politico: Congress hands Obama first veto override

I did not call this correctly.

- Click here for info on S.2040 - Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.

- Click here for the article.

Congress overwhelmingly rejected President Barack Obama’s bid to derail legislation allowing families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to sue the government of Saudi Arabia, handing him the first veto override of his presidency during his final year in office.

The Senate took the first step Wednesday, voting 97-1 to override Obama's veto of the 9/11 bill. The House quickly followed with a 348-77 vote.

The sweeping popularity of the legislation — known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act — made it basically inevitable that the measure would ultimately become law, despite fierce objections from the Obama administration. The bill, known informally as JASTA, sailed through the Senate with no objections in the spring and was voice-voted in the House earlier this month.

“This legislation is really about pursuing justice,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), one of the chief sponsors of the bill, along with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “The families have already suffered too much. They’ve already suffered untold tragedy, of course, and they deserve to find a path to closure that only justice can provide.”

Schumer said "overriding a presidential veto is something we don't take lightly."

"But it was important in this case that the families of the victims of 9/11 be allowed to pursue justice," Schumer added. "Even if that pursuit causes some diplomatic discomforts."

- For House activity on 9/28/16 click here.
- For the vote in the House click here.
- For the vote in the Senate click here.

From the Congressional Budget Office: An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2016 to 2026

For our look at budgeting in 2305.

- Click here for it.

From the NYT: Obama, Pressing Senators, Delays Veto of Bill Exposing Saudis to 9/11 Suits

Veto alert. It has to happen by Friday or the bill becomes law without a signature - as we know.

- Click here for the article.

President Obama is delaying a planned veto of a bill that would allow the families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot, hoping to tap into an unusual well of buyer’s remorse among senators who passed the measure unanimously in the spring.

The measure sailed through the House last week after a surprise last-minute vote, raising the prospect of the first veto showdown between Mr. Obama and a bipartisan coalition in Congress. But an intense lobbying campaign by the White House and Saudi Arabia, among others, has cast doubt on what had appeared to be an inevitable override of the president’s long-expected veto.

Officials have refused to say when Mr. Obama would veto the bill, and he has until next Friday to do so. His advisers are considering whether he should wait until then, after Congress is expected to recess on Thursday for the November elections, which could give him weeks to persuade lawmakers to drop their support for the measure before they return and consider the veto override.

Already, cracks are showing, even among Republicans who generally would love to exercise the first veto override against Mr. Obama.

“I have tremendous empathy for the victims,” said Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, who, like the rest of his colleagues, agreed to the measure in May. “But at the same time, I have concerns about the precedent it would set,” fearing, as many lawmakers now do, that Americans could be sued by other nations in retaliation, or by the families of innocent people killed in drone attacks.

The trepidation about overriding a presidential veto is shared by Republicans and Democrats alike. Many lawmakers apparently had believed that the House would never pass the bill, as it hastily did after the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, encountered families of the Sept. 11 victims at a fund-raiser on Long Island.

From the Washington Examiner: Hearing a showdown between First Amendment and Congress

The story raises federalism issues as well, and highlights recent activities involving the House Science Committee chaired by Texas Republican Lamar Smith.

- Click here for the article.

Wednesday hearing in the House is shaping up to be a battle between First Amendment rights and Congress' subpoena authority in its own investigations.

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee will hold a hearing assessing subpoenas issued by Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, to two state attorneys general and a number of scientific groups. Smith issued the subpoenas earlier this summer to get documents related to the climate change investigations of Exxon Mobil by New York and Massachusetts attorneys general.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and a number of scientific groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, have refused to comply with Smith's subpoenas. The attorneys general cite federalism concerns, while the groups say their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon.

On Wednesday, four law professors will go in front of the committee and assess whether Smith's subpoenas are valid. A committee aide said the goal is to show the subpoenas are valid and to force the groups into complying with them given that some of them have not shown they're willing to work with the committee.

"We're really seeing an obstruction of a congressional investigation," the aide said.

Eight organizations, in addition to the two attorneys general, received subpoenas from Smith in July. None has complied, though negotiations are ongoing.

Smith will hope to show that the subpoenas are valid under the three-pronged test set out by the Supreme Court for congressional investigations. According to that test, the subpoenas need to be issued by a committee with legislative jurisdiction over the subject matter, have a valid legislative purpose and be asking questions pertinent to the investigation.

Smith argued in a letter to the attorneys general this summer that his committee is investigating if Schneiderman and Healey are taking actions that would have a chilling effect on research and development funding. Research and development funding is, with the exception of military and medical funding, under the committee's purview.

- Click here for the hearing.

The title is: Full Committee Hearing - Affirming Congress’ Constitutional Oversight Responsibilities: Subpoena Authority and Recourse for Failure to Comply with Lawfully Issued Subpoenas.

For news coverage:

- House Science Committee Hearing an Attempt to Justify Unconstitutional Investigation.
- Constitutional scholars to House climate deniers: No witch hunt of Exxon critics.
- Congress should ask what Exxon knew about climate change.

Catching up with Congress

NBCNews: Congress Faces Five Big Issues Following Summer Recess.

- Funding Zika Vaccines
- Tackling Appropriations
- Appointing a Supreme Court Member
- Impeaching IRS Commissioner
- Finally Addressing Gun Control?

Roll Call: Freedom Caucus to Force Vote on IRS Impeachment Next Week.

House Freedom Caucus member John Fleming told reporters Friday that he plans to go to the floor Tuesday to set up a vote on a resolution to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.

By noticing his intent to file the privileged resolution on Tuesday, the Louisiana Republican would start a two-day legislative time clock for the House to take up the matter, meaning a floor vote on impeachment would occur no later than Thursday.

The expectation is that Democrats will offer a motion to table the matter or to refer it back to committee and that enough Republicans would join them to make the motion successful.

Reuters: Obama to meet U.S. Congress leaders Monday on spending.

U.S. President Barack Obama has invited congressional leaders to the White House on Monday in an attempt to break deadlocks over government spending plans and funding the fight against the Zika virus.

Congress must pass a temporary spending bill by Sept. 30 or much of the federal government will shut down. With the deadline approaching, Obama is set to meet with House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, both Republicans. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and his House counterpart Nancy Pelosi will also be present, White House and congressional officials said on Friday.

Of particular urgency is a program to fight the Zika virus which is running out of money, U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention Director Tom Frieden told reporters.

Roll Call: Congress Turning a New Leaf on Marijuana - Burgeoning business in states with legal sales sparks momentum for reform.

Just two years ago, pot lobbyist Michael Collins was a pariah on Capitol Hill.

Marijuana reform was too much of a risk.

Lawmakers wouldn’t meet with him.

Not anymore.

“I’ve got offices reaching out to me,” said Collins, the deputy director of national affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, a nonprofit group that supports the legalization of marijuana. “It’s definitely a big change.”

Marijuana-related legislation was on a fast track to nowhere until 2014. That was the year Republicans and Democrats alike approved a measure that kept federal authorities from interfering in states that allowed marijuana use for medical purposes.

Since then, both houses of Congress have seen a flood of similar proposals.

Lobbyists, policy experts and lawmakers who spoke to Roll Call said the trajectory is clear: Congress is leaning toward decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level — and it’s going to happen soon.

CNN: Congress looks to end standoff over Zika.

The big battle over Zika could be coming to an abrupt end on Capitol Hill.

A growing number of House and Senate Republicans now expect Congress will soon pass a $1.1 billion funding package to combat the Zika virus without restrictions on Planned Parenthood, a move designed to overcome a filibuster by Senate Democrats and end the pre-election season with as little drama as possible.

Such a move would represent a win for the White House and congressional Democrats.
No final decisions have been made, particularly in the House where the dynamics are more complicated than the Senate. But negotiations have intensified over the last several days and final votes could occur as soon as next week in both chambers, according to senior GOP lawmakers and Republican officials.

The idea: To tie a must-pass bill to keep the government open beyond the September 30 fiscal year deadline with language to fund vaccines and research to combat the spread of the Zika virus. Senators are likely to reach such a deal, and many Republicans now expect the House to go along as well.

Forbes: How Congress Can Make Drug Pricing More Rational.

The public reproach over the price of Mylan lifesaving drug EpiPen is the latest imbroglio in a much broader debate over drug costs. At issue is the rising list price on drugs. But as Mylan argued, these high reported prices often bear little relation to the real price actually paid, after rebates and discounts, by most health plans.

The question is how we can bring more prudence to this complex system, in which drug discounts don’t flow evenly to the patients who need access to these medicines.

Mylan pointed to a long sequence of drug supply middlemen who get a series of rebates, mostly as economic inducements for helping drug makers sell their medicines. To fund these rebates, drug makers push up the list price of their pills, only to furtively pay much of the money back to pharmacy benefit managers later.

This byzantine model for selling drugs aids both parties – the drug makers who use the rebates to buy access on restrictive drug formularies, and the pharmacy benefit managers that take a cut from these rebates to improve their profit margins.

From the NYT: House Passes Bill Allowing 9/11 Lawsuits Against Saudi Arabia; White House Hints at Veto

Great checking and balancing going on here. Congress is expanding the jurisdiction of the judiciary, the president is promising to veto, but the bill passed with more than enough votes to override it. Shows the control the general public has over the House - its tough to vote against this sort of thing just prior to the anniversary of 9/11, Even though it it may not be the wisest thing to do. Critics worry about nations allowing their citizens to sue the US in their courts.

- Click here for the article.

Here;s a chunk of it:

The bill “is a politically cost-free way for Congress to send a signal of seeming seriousness about terrorism on the dawn of the 15th anniversary of 9/11,” said Jack Goldsmith, a professor of law at Harvard who served in the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush. “Congress itself could have investigated lingering questions about 9/11, but instead is delegating those tasks to the unelected judiciary. The costs of the law will be borne by courts, which are an awkward place to ascertain Saudi responsibility for 9/11, and especially the president, who will have to deal with the diplomatic fallout with Saudi Arabia and other nations.”

The bill addresses a 1976 law that gives other countries broad immunity from American lawsuits. It amends the law to allow for nations to be sued in federal courts if they are found to have played any role in terrorist attacks that killed Americans on home soil. It also allows Americans to direct financial claims against those who funded the attacks.

The administration has argued that it would put Americans at legal risk overseas. That position seemed at least somewhat validated when Pierre Lellouche, a member of the French Parliament who is chairman of the rough equivalent in France of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he would pursue legislation that would permit French citizens to sue the United States with cause.

"I have sympathy with the notion of hitting those countries which actively support terrorism,” Mr. Lellouche said Friday. But the American bill “will cause a legal revolution in international law with major political consequences.”

From Marijuana.com: Congress OKs Medical Marijuana for Military Veterans

The times they are a-changin'

Hat tip to CJT.

- Click here for article.

The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives both took action to increase military veterans’ access to medical marijuana on Thursday.

By a vote of 89-8, senators approved a bill containing language preventing the Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.) from spending money to enforce a current policy that prohibits its government doctors from filling out medical marijuana recommendation forms in states where the drug is legal.

The House approved an amendment to accomplish the same goal by a vote of 233-189 earlier in the day.

“We are pleased that both the House and Senate have made it clear that the Veterans Administration should not punish doctors for recommending medical cannabis to their veteran patients,” Mike Liszewski, government affairs director for Americans for Safe Access (ASA), told Marijuana.com. “Combat veterans are disproportionately affected by several conditions that medical cannabis can effectively treat, including chronic pain, PTSD and traumatic brain injury. We anticipate this amendment will reach the president, and once signed, it will give V.A. physicians another tool in their toolbox to treat the healthcare needs of America’s veterans.”

The provisions are now part of a larger bills to fund the V.A. and other government agencies through next year. The medical cannabis language was attached to the Senate legislation last month in bipartisan vote of 20-10 in the Appropriations Committee, and did not require a separate vote on the floor.

From Vox: The controversial GMO labeling bill that just passed Congress, explained

The latest example of federal preemption.

- Click here for the article.

For months, Congress has been agonizing over what to do about labels for genetically modified foods. Various states have debated labeling for years. But the issue suddenly gained urgency on July 1, when Vermont became the first state in the country to require GMO labels in grocery stores.

Many food manufacturers despised Vermont’s law; they’ve been pulling their products from the state’s shelves and lobbying Congress to stop the law. Their big complaint was that if states enact their own GMO labeling laws, it would create an unworkable "patchwork" of local rules.

Now we're close to a resolution of sorts. On July 7, the Senate voted 63-30 to pass a bill that would preempt state laws like Vermont’s and replace them with a single national GMO labeling standard. On July 14, the House approved the bill by a 306 to 117 vote.

The new bill will require all food manufacturers to disclose any GM ingredients in their products. But there’s a twist: Companies can place a disclosure directly on the package. Or, if they think those labels too inflammatory, they can instead offer a digital QR code on the package that consumers would have to scan with their smartphones to get information on GM ingredients (something few people tend to do).

The bill now just needs to be signed by President Obama — and the White House has already signaled that he will do so.

Various industry groups are pleased with the Senate's bill — since it eliminates the messy patchwork — but others on both sides of this issue are displeased. Pro-labeling groups think the QR codes will be too easily ignored and say this will kill off opportunities for stricter labeling in the future. Opponents of labeling, meanwhile, argue that the whole issue is ridiculous, given the ample science showing that GM foods are just as safe to eat as regular foods.

Random stories about Congress

For 2305 students:

- No Summer of Love With Republicans in Obama's Final Year.

The White House is hitting congressional Republicans with ever-sharper rhetorical blows as years of ill will and election-year posturing threaten to kill what was already shaping up to be a slim legislative agenda.

As the extended congressional summer break approaches, both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are echoing with insults, catty tweets and fiery accusations.

. . . With so much venom, Obama’s top spokesman didn't disagree with one reporter’s assessment that his boss has lost any remaining leverage to persuade lawmakers to take up many of the issues on his final-year agenda.

Though Press Secretary Josh Earnest blamed GOP members and asserted that Obama “certainly hasn’t given up,” some lawmakers and longtime Washington hands say the discord bodes ill for getting anything done before the elections.

- Benghazi Report Describes Inertia, Failure to Recognize Risks.

The U.S. ambassador killed in Benghazi in 2012 had traveled there to lay the groundwork for a visit from Hillary Clinton a month later and the eventual opening of a permanent U.S. consulate, a report released Tuesday by a Republican-led House panel concluded.

The finding is among the few new pieces of information in sections of the 800-page report that were released to several media outlets overnight, after a two-year and $7 million investigation into the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

- Senate Democrats Block $1.1 Billion to Fight Zika: Object to provisions on birth control, pesticide use, Confederate flag.

The Senate blocked a plan Tuesday to spend $1.1. billion to fight the Zika virus, as Democrats objected to added provisions that would limit funding for birth control, allow pesticide spraying near water sources, and raise the Confederate flag.

The conference report on Zika spending, which Democrats said was developed without their input , failed to receive the 60 votes needed to shut off debate.

- Top GOP Super PAC Ups Spending in Senate Races: Ad buys indicate where group believes candidates will be competitive.

The Senate Leadership Fund plans to spend big money defending Republicans in a quartet of battleground seats this fall, the super PAC said Tuesday, a strong indication of which states the group expects — and doesn't expect — to be competitive in November.

Headlining the fund's list of TV ad reservations is a $15.8 million buy in New Hampshire, where Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte and Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan are expected to face off in one of this election cycle's marquee races.

From Politico: Senate rejects all gun bills

More on last night's vote:


- Click here for the article.

The Senate voted down four separate gun measures Monday in the aftermath of the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history — showing the partisan paralysis over gun control has barely moved on Capitol Hill despite the stream of continued gun violence across the country.

Lawmakers took up two separate issues involving gun regulations: how to improve the nation’s background check system for those who want to purchase firearms, and how to ensure those with terrorist ties do not obtain a gun. But those questions remained unresolved by lawmakers as of Monday night.

Instead, Democrats made it clear they want to make it as painful for Republicans to oppose their gun amendments, whether through a flood of advocacy calls to their Senate offices or at the ballot box in November.

For a look at the actual votes, click here: Senate Roll Call Votes.

The votes were not for a unique stand alone bill on gun control. Instead they were offered as amendment to one of the appropriations bills that has to passed later this year. Click here for it:

- H.R.2578 - Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.

For more on the appropriations process:

- House Committee on Appropriations.
- Congress.Gov: Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017.

From Politico: Democrats mount gun control filibuster

A procedure we will cover later the semester.

- Click here for the story.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) launched a talking filibuster on the Senate floor — which was quickly joined by fellow Democrats — in an effort to pressure Republicans to accept legislation that would deny suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms and require universal background checks.

The Senate is debating a spending bill that Democrats hope to offer gun amendments to, but Murphy said that the Senate should “not proceed with debate on amendments to this bill until we have figured out a way to come together on, at the very least, two simple ideas.”

“I’m going to remain on this floor until we get some signal, some sign that we can come together on these two measures, that we can get a path forward on addressing this epidemic in a meaningful, bipartisan way,” Murphy continued on the Senate floor on Wednesday, after he first started his filibuster at about 11:20 a.m.

Most of the Democratic caucus was unaware of Murphy's plans until he took the floor, two senior aides said, though there had been some talk Tuesday about lining up speeches throughout the night Wednesday.

At the same time, Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) are exploring whether there is common ground on a deal to prevent suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Currently, the two parties are backing very different approaches to resolving instances where someone feels they've been wrongly put on a watch list and therefore cannot purchase a gun.

For more:

- Wikipedia: Filibuster.
- Wikipedia: Filibuster in the U.S. Senate.

From the NYT: Orlando Shooting Reignites Gun Control Debate in Congress

It was a classic example of an agenda setting event. Now comes the debate over the legislative response - assuming there is one.

- click here for the article.

The Orlando, Fla., massacre reignited on Monday the debate over whether Americans like Omar Mateen who have been named on the government’s terrorist watch lists, or have been otherwise suspected by the authorities of ties to terrorist groups, should be allowed to purchase a gun. In Congress, even some supporters of gun rights seemed to be having second thoughts.

Six months after Republicans in Congress defeated a measure that would have closed the so-called terror gap after the San Bernardino, Calif., attack, Senate Democrats moved swiftly on Monday to restart the debate over tightening federal gun laws.

As a first step, the Democrats demanded that Republicans take up legislation aimed at banning the sale of guns or explosives to people who have appeared on watch lists, or who have been suspected by the Justice Department of ties to terrorist organizations.

“In the wake of Orlando, we need to think about what kind of country and Senate we want to be,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, a Democrat, said in a conference call with reporters. “Are we going to take the painfully obvious common-sense steps so that terrorists can’t get guns, or are we going to bow down to the N.R.A.?” he asked, referring to the National Rifle Association.

Mr. Schumer and other Democrats insisted that the legislation that failed in December could have prevented Mr. Mateen, identified as the Orlando gunman, from buying the weapons used in the attack. “We are now living with the consequences of that vote,” Mr. Schumer said. “How many more people have to die at the hands of a terrorist with a gun before the Senate acts?”

Just one Republican, Senator Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, voted in favor of the legislation in December, but Democrats said on Monday they believed that Republicans would come under new pressure. Indeed, there were signs that some Republicans might be reconsidering.

Just for kicks:

- From procon.org: Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?

From NORML: Congressional Scorecard

In honor of 4/20 of course.

And it provides an example of how interest groups can send messages to supporters, as well as give warning to members of Congress that they are keeping track of them.

- Click here for it.

NORML is pleased to present its 2016 Congressional Scorecard. The Scorecard is an all-encompassing database that assigns a letter grade 'A' through 'F' to members of Congress based on their marijuana-related comments and voting records. The information provided in the scorecard will periodically be updated as needed.

Read the executive summary to learn why the Scorecard is important, how the grades were calculated, and key findings of our research. Then, check out your Congressional members' voting records on marijuana law reform amendments. If you find this tool useful, please consider making adonation of at least $4.20 so that we may continue to work towards legalization and providing you the tools necessary to be an informed voter.

From the executive summary, a list of the votes they took into consideration to determine their grades:

NORML weighed the following votes when determining our grades for US Representatives:

The 2015 McClintock/Polis Amendment: This language, which was defeated by the House, sought to prohibit the Department of Justice from interfering with state-specific, adult use marijuana laws.

The 2015 Rohrabacher/Farr Amendment: This language, which was passed by the House, prohibits the Department of Justice from interfering with state-specific medical marijuana programs that license the production and dispensing of cannabis to qualified patients.

The 2015 Blumenauer Amendment: This language, which was defeated by the House, sought to permit physicians affiliated with the US Department of Veterans Affairs to recommend cannabis therapy to veterans in states that allow for its therapeutic use.

NORML weighed the following amendment votes when determining our grades for US Senators:

The 2015 Daines/Merkley Amendment: This language, which was passed by the Senate but later defeated in conference with the House, sought to permit physicians affiliated with the US Department of Veterans Affairs to recommend cannabis therapy to veterans in states that allow for its therapeutic use.

The 2015 Mikulski Amendment: This language, which was passed by the Senate, prohibits the Department of Justice from interfering with state-specific medical marijuana programs that license the production and dispensing of cannabis to qualified patients

The 2015 Merkley Amendment: This language, which was passed by the Senate but later defeated in conference with the House, sought to prohibit the US Treasury Department from using federal funds to take punitive actions against banks and other financial institutions that provide services to marijuana-related businesses that are operating legally under state laws.

From the Brookings Institute: 2016 in Congress: Five things to watch

The 114th Congress ended strong. Some smart types try to figure out whether this will continue:

- Click here for the article.

They pose five questions:

1. Can Speaker Ryan extend his honeymoon?

2. Will we see separate appropriations bills?

3. What does a “proposition party” look like, exactly?

4. How does Ryan’s vision for the House square with McConnell’s electoral reality in the Senate?

5. Will congressional Republicans hand President Obama one last legislative victory on the TPP?

We will monitor progress over the spring.