The Two Congresses at Work: November 2013

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Kirsten Gillibrand a One of a Kind Senator

In looking at how Senator Gillibrand does her two jobs as a senator over the past couple months it is clear she has a very distinctive and different style than most other members of Congress. Although she is a democrat from the liberal State of New York, Senator Gillibrand really tries to show bipartisanship when she is home representing her constituents in New York and also when she is in Washington legislating and making laws on the Hill. Very little about Senator Gillibrand’s work over the past few months in Washington has been strictly partisan. Even at times when she does take a very partisan stand she tries to take that moment and use it as a way to show how politicians should be working across the aisle. It appears that she wants both New Yorkers and Americans to see how members of Congress can work across the aisle to get work done, and with respect to Gillibrand the two congresses seem compatible.

Senator Gillibrand has been a very staunch advocate for accountability and bipartisanship in Washington. One example of this occurred during the government shutdown when she appeared on the MSNBC’s Morning Joe Show less than two days after the government was shut down. Senator Gillibrand, when interviewed on the show, took a stand that most members of the Democratic Party would have taken by saying we can’t give into the “tea party temper tantrum” as she described it, and said the only way for our government to reopen again is for the House of Representatives to pass the Senate’s clean resolution with no Obamacare changes attached to it. This was the stance that most members of her party advocated. However, toward the end of the interview on MSNBC she used this moment in this country’s political atmosphere when members of Congress were extremely partisan and much divided and said that there is a great need for bipartisanship in Washington. She also mentioned how she was only successful in passing bills when she got senators from both parties to support her, and she stated that not enough of that is happening in Washington today which is a major issue according to Gillibrand. Senator Gillibrand mentioned on the show two bills which she was praised for by members of both parties; her bill to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and her signature 9.11 Healthcare Bill. Senator Gillibrand was even praised by Fox News for her work on the 9.11 Healthcare Bill which gave healthcare to first responders who become ill due to breathing in toxic fumes at Ground Zero. Senator Gillibrand said on this MSNBC segment that the Congress’s inability to compromise and work together accounts for why this government shutdown was happening. Senator Gillibrand also said the American people want members of Congress to work together and that’s what they were elected to do. (http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/10/kirsten-gillibrand-will-not-be-giving.html)

(http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/09/lets-meet-honorable-ny-senator-kirsten_7.html)

From this point forward, Senator Gillibrand used the government shutdown as a way to show Americans and New Yorkers how bipartisanship can work both at home and in Washington. Kirsten Gillibrand stayed out of the partisan debate over Obamacare and the shutdown. She really didn’t involve herself in blaming Republicans for the shutdown and stuck to her own agenda. After the two week government shutdown ended, Kirsten Gillibrand didn’t just talk about the need for bipartisanship in Washington she showed it when she went home for the weekend to New York. Senator Gillibrand who was suffering from a leg injury that week and was walking with the use of crutches appeared with Republican Congressmen Chris Gibson from New York 19^th District at an event to discuss the need to spread awareness about Lyme Disease and improve diagnosis and treatments for the disease. She also went to see a heating factory with Chris Gibson in upstate New York the same weekend. A local News network YNN said both members of Congress had a long history of working together before these events. Senator Gillibrand said in a quote that “this should not be unusual, it’s what the American people ask of us, it is what the American people demand.” Senator Gillibrand later discussed her Military Sexual Assault Bill in a private press conference with Congressman Gibson who said he supports it because “sexual assault has no place in our military.” Senator Gillibrand did this at a time when Congress was extremely divided after the government shutdown and was able to show how members of both parties can work together at home to get things done. (http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/10/senator-gillibrand-did-not-let-being-on.html)

(http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/10/senator-gillibrand-is-not-letting.html)

For most of November, Senator Gillibrand has been working extremely hard in Washington to get her bill which changes how sexual assaults are handled in the military passed in the Senate. Although it still hasn’t been voted on in the Senate, Gillibrand was able to get bipartisan support like she did with her 9.11 Healthcare Bill and the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal Bill which both passed Congress and were signed into law. Currently nine Republican Senators support her bill including Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Susan Collins. Over the course of the past several weeks, Senator Gillibrand showed how what she said in her MSNBC appearance on Morning Joe about the need for politicians to work together and get bipartisan support by engaging in bipartisan discussions both on the Hill and at home. She did this when she was representing her constituents by appearing with Chris Gibson at both events in New York and when she was legislating her Military Sexual Assault Bill in Congress by trying to get support from Republican Senators. Senator Gillibrand does her job similarly at home and in Washington. She represents her constituents similar to how she acts as a lawmaker in Washington. When looking at Kirsten Gillibrand as a Senator, the two Congresses are similar and compatible in a lot of ways. Senator Gillibrand has recently showed in the media, at home in New York and in Washington how bipartisanship can work and members of Congress can find areas in which they agree. (http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/11/support-grows-for-gillibrands-military.html)

(http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/11/senator-gillibrand-in-fierce-battle-to.html)

Senator Gillibrand has even gone against members of her own party on the issue of how Sexual Assaults should be handled in the military. Senator Gillibrand and Clare McCaskill, a Democratic Senator from Missouri, don’t agree on how the issue of sexual assaults should be handled in the military. The main question that arises is whether the job of the two congresses is about polarized parties in Washington, promoting party interest or representing the constituents at home and if furthering one’s own political future is contingent upon how individual members of Congress are able to reconcile their job at home with their job in Washington. Senator Gillibrand over the past couple months has come up on the short list of possible Democratic candidates who might run in 2016 if Hilary Clinton does not. A few weeks ago, a famous political commentator Cokie Roberts even said that Gillibrand with all her work in Congress is definitely a possible candidate in 2016. Lindsay Graham, a Republican Senator from South Carolina, stated how he feels Senator Gillibrand’s work on military sexual assaults is a “political prize” and “resume builder” for her. The Daily News stated even if her bill doesn’t pass and become law her work will help her politically. Senator Gillibrand is not a Senator that has to worry a lot about re-election since she got over 70 percent of the vote in the last election and New York State is not a state with elections that are very competitive for state-wide elections. Over the last couple months, Senator Gillibrand might have been staying out of the political debate and partisanship to show that she can work on her own agenda like the Military Sexual Assault Bill at a time when Congress is very partisan and divided to help her advance politically. Senator Gillibrand is still a fairly young female Senator who is probably far from done with politics and if she wants to advance politically she will have to make her name more known to Americans and not just New Yorkers. Senator Gillibrand proves that Congress may not be just about representing constituents or passing legislation, but its main goal may be about the future goals of the member of Congress. For some members that might be solely re-election related according to Mayhew, for some about representing promises they made to constituents and possibly for Kirsten Gillibrand about advancing her political career dreams and getting her name out there. Every Member of Congress’s style is different and a variety of factors come into play which makes it difficult to measure the Two Congresses in a distinct uniform black and white format. It should be interesting to see what happens with Kirsten Gillibrand’s political future and if her style of being similar in Washington and at home proves to be beneficial. Also, it will be interesting to observe if her willingness to work across the aisle with members of both parties will help Americans view Gillibrand in a positive light.

(http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/11/support-grows-for-gillibrands-military.html)

(http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/11/momentum-continues-for-senator.html)

Boehner and his Struggles with the Two Congresses at Work

Boehner and his Struggles with the Two Congresses at Work

Throughout the semester in our Congress class, we evaluated the fundamental question of if the Two Congresses are ultimately compatible, or are they diverting forces, each detrimental to each other. After following Republican congressmen and Speaker of the House John Boehner this semester, I believe that the Two Congresses are not compatible and are diverting, and there is no better example than Speaker of the House John Boehner, who is feeling these crippling affects from the two sides.

The Two Congresses is an interesting task that Congress struggles with on a daily basis. On one side, Congress must take care of its constituents, the people they not only represent but the people who elected them into office. They must do always strive to do whatever is in their best interests on a daily basis. As hard enough as that already is, they must balance this heavy task while also dealing with the nation’s problems and creating and passing laws. Congress must balance both sides and work tirelessly to make sure they don’t neglect either side or they could very well lose the job they so highly covet. A great example of this struggle is Speaker of the House John Boehner, and the difficult task he has of not only balancing the concerns of his constituents, but also dealing with the nations problems, as he is the not just leader of the Republican party, but the leader of House, as he holds the highest position one could have in the house.

Throughout the semester, Mr. Boehner has dealt with struggles that have left him feeling the crippling effects of these Two Congresses at work. It all started on September 4^th when Boehner visited his district in Ohio to see the constituents he represents. During this routine visit, Boehner was attacked with rumors that he would be retiring in 2014 and would not seek to reelection as Speaker of the House. Had these rumor continued to swirl, Boehner would have been left severely hamstrung and in essence, a lame-duck Speaker of the House for the rest of his term which would have then hurt his ability to lead the Republican party with the budget crisis just a month or so away. Boehner and his top aides were forced to cut their visit short and fly back to Washington to squash these rumors and send a clear message that not only was Boehner in charge, but it was going to remain that way. This was the first example of Boehner dealing with the struggle between the Two Congresses, as he had to leave one aspect of it (the representation), to deal with the governing and national issues and the lawmaking part of it. (Blog Post: A crazy week in the life of John Boehner)

Another great example of the struggles Boehner faced was dealing with the government shutdown, particularly the fight he and the Republicans had with Democrats over The Affordable Health Care Act, or “Obamacare,” as it’s better known as. During this debate, the Republicans would not agree to pass a new budget or a continuing resolution that would fund the government if it did not call for the defunding of Obamacare in it. The leader of this movement for the Republicans was Speaker of the House John Boehner, who battled with President Obama while this shutdown loomed. During this time, the majority of the America people wanted the debate to be about the debt limit and the countries economy, not Obamacare, but according to Boehner in early October, “I and my members (of the Republican party) decided the threat of Obamacare and what was happening was so important that it was time for us to take a stand. And we took a stand.” Even Boehner himself noted that he, “thought the fight would be over the debt ceiling,” but Boehner then went on to say, “But you know, working with my members (of the Republican party), they decided, well, let’s do it now. And the fact is, this fight was going to come, one way or the other. We’re in the fight” (Blog post: Could Boehner go all the way). This is another example of not just Boehner, but the Republican Party not listening to their constituents and deciding that the other side of the Two Congresses at work was more important. They decided to go with the defunding of Obamacare instead of what the American people wanted, because they felt that this was in the countries best interests. As it turned out, the government shutdown and the Republicans, particularly Boehner took most of the blame. Boehner was killed by the press and Democrats for leading the government to close its doors and the rumors once again continued to swirl that one way or another, Boehner would no longer be in control of the House come 2014.

This was another great example of the struggles Boehner faced from the Two Congresses. His constituents and the majority of Americans felt as if the debate should have focused on the budget and the debt limit, but Boehner decided to go with The Affordable Health Care Act, which left him to take massive political backlash from all sides. One must also take into account the issues within the Republican Party that Boehner faces as well. As we’ve noted on our blog numerous times, Boehner must deal with the extreme right wing “tea party” republicans as well as deal with the moderate base of the Republican Party. To make matters even harder, Boehner must balance out the two sides and listen to both of their concerns and do his best to keep both sides of the party happy, which seems as if its impossible to do. It also seems as if Boehner would have been the loser on any side of this argument, because had Boehner heeded the concerns of the people and pushed Republican lawmakers to steer clear of any talk about Obamacare, which many of the moderates wanted, he would have been run over by the extreme side of the party who would have likely pushed him of office as a result of this. (Blog Post: And Your Winner is … John Boehner)

Dealing with the representing and the governing aspects of Congress is extremely difficult. On an average day on the hill, one must spend nearly four hours campaigning, spend hours dealing with the issues that plague Washington as well as speak to constituents at home to keep them happy. For Speaker of the House John Boehner, he must deal with all of these responsibilities as well as lead not only a fractured Republican Party but also lead the United States House of Representatives. With all of these facts in mind, it seems as if the Two Congresses at Work are not compatible and instead, are diverting forces each detrimental to each other, and there is no better example of this than Speaker of the House John Boehner, who has felt the crippling affects from trying to manage both sides.

#1) http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-crazy-week-in-life-of-john-boehner.html

#2) http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/10/could-boehner-go-all-way.html

#3) http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/10/and-your-winner-is-john-boehner.html

Breaking News: The Two Congresses CAN WORK!

Two congresses, one acting as a law making institution while the second congress constituting a representative assembly, are ultimately compatible. While these two congresses that are always “at play” with each other, the home style to hill style decisions Congressman Denham deployed while serving California’s 10^th Congressional District allowed these two Congresses, albeit different in nature, to be compatible with one another.

Congressman Denham serves in a district, California’s 10^th, that does not have an overwhelming majority of registered voters affiliated to one political party. In fact, 40% of voters are registered Democrats, about 39% of voters are registered Republicans, and the remaining voters are not registered to a particular party, although recently, these independent voters have supported the GOP (District 10). However, Congressman Denham, affiliated and “aligned” with the Republican Party, votes for Republican sponsored bills 93% of the time (Open Congress). A man elected in a district where the constituency support is spread out across the political party spectrum while voting in partisan manner, in support of Republican ideals 93% of the time, provides evidence in illustrating these two Congresses, a law making institution on Capitol Hill and a representative institution on the home front, “working” in a compatible manner.

Congressman Denham held true to his Republican title and partisan voting in Washington (93% of the time) through his stance, lack of support, and “no” vote in not backing President Barak Obama’s call for a military strike in Syria, as well as through his stance, lack of support, and “no” vote in determining a budget for the 2014 fiscal year and in avoiding a government shutdown (Cantatore). In fact, adhering to the Republican Party and thus the Hill front (as only about 39% of registered voters in District 10 staunchly supported Republican ideals), Congressman Denham voted strictly among partisan lines on House Resolution 333. A bill to avoid a government shutdown while prohibiting federal funds for the implantation of the Affordable Health Care Act, House Resolution 333 passed the Republican controlled House by a vote of 320-189, with Congressman Denham voting partisan, in strict favor of the Republican Party (Dinan 2013). Thus, Congressman Denham catered (in this instance) to the law-making institution, his Republican Party, and the Hill front over the interests of his constituents and home front.

Nonetheless, Congressman Denham has also supported initiatives that represent the make up of his home constituency, serving in a bi- partisan manner on the Hill while acting in the best interests of his representative assembly at home. Congressman Denham championed and became the “…first Republican co-sponsor of a comprehensive immigration overhaul measure sponsored by 185 Democrats.” (Dumain) In a district made up of 40% Latino, Congressman Denham’s bi- partisan support on a Democratic immigration reform bill exemplified his role in prioritizing the interests and characteristics of his home front (in this instance) over his Republican Party’s and Hill front (District 10). Moreover, Congressman Denham continually supported local councils based in his 10^th Congressional District on the Hill, while showing a strong presence back in California. Congressman Denham continually met with the policy council of San Joaquin Valley to discuss funding for Highway 99, a highway that needed repair after deterioration in its core infrastructure, as well as attempted to sponsor bills for funding of major highways throughout the district back on the House floor (govtrack).

Congressman Denham over the course of the past three months illustrated the two Congress’s working in a truly compatible manner. Congressman Denham was ultimately a staunch advocate for both the hill and his home front, for his constituency who elected him to Capitol Hill as well as the Republican Party as a whole. Congressman Denham voted among party lines while also voting with constituent needs, evident by his record. Albeit a new politician in Washington, Congressman Denham indeed illustrated the balance of working between and with the two congresses.

{every source is from a previous blog}

Sources

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/districts/CD10/

http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/412403_Jeff_Denham

http://turlockcitynews.com/news/item/1190-denham-government-shutdown-frustrating-about-fairness

http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/denhams-immigration-crusade/

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/27/20720258-senate-votes-to-send-government-funding-bill-back-to-house?lite

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Diversity Rules the Day

Democratic Senator Bill Nelson had quite the mixed bag of legislative and otherwise political activity in this past week. He kept himself exceptionally busy, attempting to push through several pieces of legislation important to both his constituents and his party, while also talking with a foreign head of state, and addressing rumors as to his potential job switch in an upcoming election.

Recently, Nelson had pushed for a proposal to stop steep increases in flood insurance rates affecting Florida (among other states). Because it was not big enough to push through on a bill of its own, Senator Nelson, along with other members (on both sides of the aisle), is attempting to attach it to the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill deemed by the Florida Senator to be a “must-pass” act of legislation. This bill has large implications for his home constituents as Florida had extraordinarily high rates of flood insurance, which is especially troublesome for a state that resides at sea level and has had many flooding issues in the past. In addition, Nelson, who has long been an advocate for ridding the U.S. of workplace discrimination against gay and transgender employees voted in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This bill passed the Senate easily and should have the same reaction and result in the House shortly hereafter.

Also legislatively, Senator Bill Nelson voted with his party in favor of making a simple majority vote on judicial and executive branch nominees, essentially ridding the Senate on filibusters for this sort of activity. Interestingly, yet not surprisingly, his fellow senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, voted against this measure. These results are not surprising, as both parties (and leaders therein) have issued statements supporting the way both senators voted. The last bit of legislative news from Nelson’s camp stems from his hope to extend a ban on firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors (which expires in a few weeks). The main thrust behind this issue is with the growing market for guns printed with 3-d printing, a modern development which has caught on increasingly more over the last while.

Outside of the legislative world, Senator Nelson met with Haiti’s president, Michel Martelly about the overdue parliamentary and local elections in Haiti, showing off Nelson’s ability and influence which he used to meet with him. In addition, and unrelated, Senators Nelson and Rubio recited the Gettysburg Address for a video this week, bringing in issues from the past in an interesting way. Lastly, the rumors surrounding Nelson’s attempts at running for governor of Florida have been quelled by his comments this week to the contrary. However, and very interestingly, he did not rule it out completely if he were to change his mind in the near future.

Sources:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/bill-nelson-florida-governor-election-100066.html

http://news.wfsu.org/post/us-senator-files-bill-help-feds-crack-down-growing-problem-plastic-guns

http://news.wjct.org/post/video-us-sens-nelson-and-rubio-recite-gettysburg-address

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/senators-will-try-to-amend-flood-insurance-rate-fix-to-defense-bill/2153164

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/senate-changes-filibuster-rules-nelson-in-favor-rubio-against/2153566

http://www.theledger.com/article/20131122/EDIT01/131129730?tc=ar

http://www.sentinel.ht/politics/articles/international/5207-bill-nelson-calls-martelly-about-overdue-elections

Outsiders Coming Down Hard on Lance for 'Keep Your Health Plan Act'

I want to follow-up on last week’s blog surrounding Representative Lance’s push for his co-sponsored bill in response to the Affordable Care Act. I would possibly even challenge to say that the backlash and negativity that Lance is currently experiencing or from the press that I have seen it may be at least as bad as if not worse than the negative press that has been out there on Obamacare. I find this to be extremely concerning because of the complete 360 turn from the birth of this co-sponsored bill in Congress just a couple of weeks ago. My question would be if there was some type of flaw in the system of starting a bill in the hopes of it becoming a law. Are too many bills killed in the process? I’m not sure of the answer to this question, but I wonder if this conflict of the new “Keep Your Health Plan Act” deems the process problematic.

Like many bills in Congress that I have seemed to notice more recently-like the “Keep Your Health Plan Act”-are not always entirely what they seem. Representative Lance has said from the beginning that the sole purpose of the bill was to keep people from losing their healthcare plans with insurance companies who did not necessarily meet the requirements and standards that were laid out with Obamacare. However, the bill was enacted solely to allow the insurers to continue to sell a type of individual plan that were in effect until January 1, 2013 to anyone and not just those whose plans would be cancelled. (Daily Record 2013). The argument is that Lance’s agenda all along was simply to do whatever it took to destroy the Affordable Healthcare Act, therefore the legitimacy of his new bill is in question. Also, he had previously stated publicly that even Bill Clinton had his support in this new bill. But that was also a lie. Lance’s opponents are more concerned that the representative is not necessarily looking at the big picture of Obamacare and giving it the right chance. Just because the software implementation has been a struggle and in some Members of Congress’ eyes a failure, does not necessarily discredit the policy. Opponents of Leonard Lance are also concerned that his constituents are not being properly informed of all the issues in order to fully understand the conflict in Congress themselves. According to a recent publication in the Daily Record, Lance “sent constituents a bizarre poll that intentionally left out the option to pass the budget bill without defunding the ACA, then the next poll backtracked and tried to paint him as a moderate. He shows he continues to be a puppet of the Tea Party that is losing its stranglehold on congressional GOP leadership as more elections are lost.” I feel that this is indeed a very valid point.

A factor that I find interesting is the upcoming election for Lance’s specific seat in the House. The GOP primary running mate against Lance is Republican David Larsen who ran against Lance two previous times. Will the third time be a charm, especially with all the recent negative press that Lance has been receiving? I wonder if the role that this current “deceiving” anti-ACA bill may play would ruin Lance’s reputation as one of the trusted leaders in the House. Larsen specifically attacked Lance’s representation ability and true alliance to the GOP, “This is God’s country out here, and I don’t see Representative Lance as a leader. I am with the likes of [U.S. Senator] Ted Cruz and [U.S. Senator] Rand Paul. I’m the true conservative in the race” (Bonamo 2013). I would criticize the strength of Larsen’s current campaign in that it seems to be solely based on the bashing of Lance rather than [pointing out Larsen’s specific strategies and goals for the House and Congress in general if he were to be elected. His chief of staff seems to agree because he did mention how in order for Larsen to finally beat Lance this time around he will need a completely revamped playbook and new set of issues to work with. Many doubt the experience Larsen has had in comparison to Lance, but this many not be so much of an issue anymore with the negative aura that seems to be currently surrounding Lance. I also think that Larsen has a good argument when he points out that originally Representative Lance had voted for Obamacare and also to continue to raise the debt ceiling when there was the issue of the budget being passed. Both of which align with more liberal ideologies, and would go against the views of his constituents as well as the political party he represents. I’d worry that Lance may have originally be voting in order to please his colleagues rather than looking out for the needs of his constituents or what may be best for the American people. I think that David Larsen may be able to build a stronger campaign against Lance than he has in the past. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the GOP primaries.

*Sources include:

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20131119/NJOPINION02/311190002/Lance-s-bill-will-gut-ACA-not-fix-it?nclick_check=1

http://www.politickernj.com/69698/gop-primary-cd-7-shapes-larsen-challenges-us-rep-lance-3rd-time-lonegan-backs-lance

All's Quiet on the Western Front

This week saw Representative Mike Fitzpatrick taking care of his standard duties and obligations without producing anything of significant note. A quick glance at his Facebook page shows that Fitzpatrick took time this week to raise awareness of the JFK Assassination Anniversary, the Eagles victory over the rival Redskins, and for supporting Alzheimer's awareness. While these actions are of relatively little import, Fitzpatrick did take time to address some more pertinent issues.
On a more practical note, Fitzpatrick also included on his Facebook a link to a site with information regarding the retrieval of important documents that may have been destroyed. With the recent disasters in Illinois and Colorado, I found this information to be of a far more pertinent and useful nature. Fitzpatrick's constituents may not be directly affected by these disasters, but the information is nonetheless useful to have. It is also a clear attempt by Fitzpatrick to show that he is one of the "good guys" that genuinely care about the well-being of Americans. In a lot of ways, it serves the same function as his posts about the Eagles do: it shows he's just regular dude, in touch with the interests and concerns of those he represents.
In terms of legislation, Fitzpatrick lended support for two bills of note. The first, the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013, would "create common standards for financial data provided by government agencies, and expands the amount of data that agencies are required to provide to USASpending.gov." In the wake of our own class budget simulation, I felt like this bill was very apropos. I know from personal experience just how difficult it is to dig up any financial records when it comes to government spending, and I feel this bill is clearly intended to make legislators more responsible for their financial policies since they will be more readily available to citizens.
This week saw relatively limited amounts of activity by Representative Fitzpatrick. He's simply maintaining a "good brand name" with his constiuents, showing his support for local sports teams and being active in the community. These actions may be of negligible significance on the grand scale of things, but they certainly go a long way towards establishing a positive connection with his constituents. As we've analyzed all year, this base of support at home is absolutely essential to the pursuit of more national agendas in Washington, which we also see this week through his support for the Digital Accountability Act.

Sources:

https://www.facebook.com/RepFitzpatrick

http://www.fema.gov/news-release/2013/11/05/replacing-your-important-papers

http://www.gop.gov/bill/113/1/hr2061

My head hurts, I forgot what happened this week?

This week was a rather slow one for Congressman Timothy Bishop. There are only two items found for his actions during the week. The major action for Tim Bishop was introducing along with fellow Democrats the "Protecting Student Athletes from Concussions Act." This Act sets a minimum standard for preventing, diagnosing and treating concussions in student athletes. In doing this it also provides training to teachers, parents, and coaches to be aware of symptoms. The bill also introduces the "when in doubt, sit them out" clause. This means that any student who may show signs of concussions must be kept out of activities for the rest of the day and have them checked by a doctor, as well as having their parents notified. This bill is a continuation of the wave sweeping the United States of the fears associated with concussions and their long-term consequences, a wave that began in the NFL. The timing of this bill's introduction, as well as Tim Bishop's support is rather interesting, as his district is only a short commute from MetLife Stadium in the New Jersey. This site is hosting the Super Bowl this coming February, and therefore being an issue so talked about in the NFL, it will receive increased support as well as increased coverage from the NFL players association, as well as from the media. This coverage of the issue will seem to play to the supporters favor as they hope it will pass quickly.
The other issue that Tim Bishop was a part of this past week was issuing a newsletter on the problem, or rather now the solution of the Affordable Care Act. President Obama has been quoted in the past as saying that all Americans will be able to keep their healthcare packages if they so choose. The problem was some of the healthcare packages, although negative to the individual, were cancelled, and thus it was overplayed as a fabricated lie. Tim Bishop in this newsletter attempts to explain the problem with the old plans that were dropped. "Currently, Americans can purchase policies that have significant coverage gaps and will not protect them from bankruptcy if they get sick. That is not insurance, and eliminating these shoddy plans will improve the market for all of us. We have laws to protect consumers from faulty toasters and cars, and we should have laws protecting us from faulty insurance products as well." This new agreement will allow people to purchase their existing bills for one more year if they so choose. In doing this, Tim Bishop is attempting to assuage some of the anger felt toward the "lie" fed to them by the President, and keep the support of the bill high.

Nukes on the Mind; Iran's and Ried's

Late this week Secretary of State John Kerry, along with the leading foreign officials of five other nations, announced the reaching of an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program. This follows an aggressive push by many senators, Senator Menendez among them, to introduce new sanctions against Iran. There have been very mixed reaction in the Senate, many have criticized the deal stating that Iran has not given enough and that America has given too much (Killough). Others have been more accepting simply voicing the need for caution in any deal with Iran (Killough). Even in light of the new deal some senators intend to continue to pursue new sanctions on Iran. Senator Menendez has so far not made any significant statements on the issue of the Iran deal, but as both a major actor in the push for new sanctions and his position as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee his decision to accept the deal and whether to pursue new sanctions put him in a key position in the coming days.
On the subject of nukes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moved on his so called "nuclear option" this week. The nuclear option is a change in the Senates filibuster rules to allow a filibuster to be ended by a simple majority of 51 votes, down from the 60 votes previously (Isherwood). This came as a response to Republicans blocking two separate presidential nominees. Senator Menendez, along with 51 other Senators, voted in favor of the change in rules (Isherwood). Senators Menendez stated that the "unprecedented obstruction against this President by the other side has brought us here" and that the change in rules will allow the Senate to return to "the people's business" (Isherwood).

Sources
Killough, Ashley. Lawmakers from both parties urge caution on Iran deal. CNN.com. posted November 24th, 2013. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/24/lawmakers-from-both-parties-urge-caution-on-iran-deal/
Isherwood, Darryl. Booker, Menendez vote yes on historic "nuclear option." NJ.com. Posted November 21st, 2013. http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/booker_menendez_say_aye_in_historic_nuclear_option_vote.html

Congress Week in Review: From the Nuclear Option to Nuclear Weapons

“Senate Democrats have gone nuclear” is one of the lead headlines this week. On Thursday the Senate Democrats made a major change to Senate protocol striking down the rule about filibustering and greatly weakening the minority’s power. “The so-called nuclear option eliminates the requirement for a 60-vote majority to confirm most presidential nominees, exempting Supreme Court nominees.”[1] The new change will exempt executive nominees such as agency heads from being filibustered, this will greatly shrink the minority party’s control over nominations. Democrats claim that the nuclear options stems from the frustrating blockade Republican Senators have imposed on Obama’s nominees. The hope is that this will smooth the appointment process. The Obama backed rule change will spark political hostility and have left some to question if this change wont come back to haunt the Democrats. In the words of Senator McConnell, “You’ll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.”[2]

Turning to foreign policy, Secretary of State John Kerry has been busy negotiating a nuclear weapons deal with Iran this week, but not all in Congress are supportive. Since Iran is willing to negotiate, the President has said that the U.S. should lift some of its economic sanctions on Iran. The Republicans are weary of this and are not too optimistic that these nuclear weapons talks will bring any real change. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tweeted this week: “Unless the agreement requires dismantling of the Iranian centrifuges, we really haven’t gained anything.”[3] The Republicans have declared that they will not support lifting sanctions unless a more drastic deal is made in the negotiations. The negotiations with Iran are not completely finalized so perhaps we will have to wait and see the outcome in order to determine if sanctions will be lifted.

The House adjourned Thursday for a 10-day Thanksgiving vacation and with that budget negotiations have stopped for the time being. Republicans and Democrats in the conference committee are struggling to come to an agreement and time is running out. With the holiday vacation this only leaves budget negotiators with eight working days to reach a compromise by the deadline set for December 13^th, otherwise the issue will be pushed back to the following year. “Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday that he's hopeful the negotiators will reach a deal by the Dec. 13 deadline. If they don't, he added, GOP leaders are prepared to move a short-term continuing resolution at current spending levels — which includes the sequester cuts — to prevent a government shutdown.”[4] The pressure is on to reach a budget deal before the end of the year and it seems that all of Washington is holding their breath until than.

Written by Carolyn Dorf and Richard Reid

[1] Sarah Westwood, "History of Nuclear decisions: Fallout from Senate Dems going 'nuclear' ," The Washington Times, Nov 22, 2013. http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/unicorn-diaries/2013/nov/22/fallout-senate-democrats-nuclear-option/.

[2] Sarah Westwood, "History of Nuclear decisions: Fallout from Senate Dems going 'nuclear' ," The Washington Times, Nov 22, 2013. http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/unicorn-diaries/2013/nov/22/fallout-senate-democrats-nuclear-option/.

[3] Peter Schroeder, "Republicans wary of Iran nuclear deal ," The Hill, Nov. 23, 2013. http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-eastnorth-africa/191267-gop-wary-of-iran-deal.

[4] Mike Lillis, "Dem leaders: No break before budget deal," The Hill, Nov. 21, 2013. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/191076-dem-leaders-no-break-before-budget-deal.