GOP vows to block Consumers Protection nominee

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Senate Republicans Kill Veterans’ Jobs Bill

By Ben Armbruster/Think Progress

Senate Republicans prevented a veterans’ jobs bill from coming to a vote today by forcing a budget point of order vote. Democrats came up 2 votes short of the 60 needed to defeat the GOP’s budget measure.

The Veterans Jobs Corps bill — which is part of President Obama’s push to secure jobs for veterans — would have provided $1 billion over five years to hire 20,000 young veterans for public lands jobs and prioritize vets for first responder jobs such as police, firefighter, or EMT. The measure would have also provided young vets access to the infrastructure with which to assist in job searches, such as access to computers, internet and career services advisers.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a vets group that supported the legislation,called the GOP move “a huge disappointment,” adding, “Today, politics won over helping vets.”

While only five Republicans voted with the Democrats to waive the GOP budget point of order measure, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) led the GOP opposition. “When we find ourselves in $16 trillion of debt and we pay for a five-year bill over 10 years, we make the problem worse,” he said.

However, Veterans Jobs Corps bill co-sponsor Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) said on the Senate floor today that “this bill is fully paid for and does not violate pay-go rules.” (The New York Times said Murray’s aides say “say the program will be paid for by recovering more money from tax-delinquent Medicare providers and forcing big tax deadbeats to pay up before receiving passports.”)

Murray even tried to include most of the provisions of a competing Republican bill but Democrats still ran into opposition. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said he would block the measure until the Pakistani doctor that aided the CIA in looking for Osama bin Laden was freed, while Coburn claimed the bill would have no chance of passing the House so it wasn’t worth the effort.

“I’ve been surprised at the many obstacles and weird arguments that have been thrown at us,” Murray told the Washington Post.

The jobless rate for Iraq and Afghanistan war vets, while steadily declining, is still higher than the national average, yet congressional Republicans remain “resolute in their commitment to deny the Democrats anything that looks like an accomplishment in an election year.”

In an editorial last weekend referring to today’s vote, the New York Times said, “We’ll know then whether good sense prevailed, or the wheels have come completely off the Congressional machine.” It looks like the Republicans have made sure of the latter.

House GOP Tax Plan Raises Taxes On 10 Times As Many People As Democratic Proposal

By Travis Waldron/Think Progress

Senate Republicans last week proposed a plan that would raise taxes on more than 20 million Americans, while maintaining the high-end Bush tax cuts. Letting those tax cuts on income in excess of $250,000 expire would affect just two million wealthy taxpayers, by comparison.

Now, House Republicans have adopted the same plan, and the effect is the same: roughly 24 million middle- and lower-class Americans will see their taxes raised so that roughly two million of the richest taxpayers can maintain a tax cut, as this chart from the Center for American Progress’ Seth Hanlon and Sarah Ayres illustrate:

Even worse, more than a third of families with children — a total of 18.6 million households, including 9.2 million single parents — would see a tax increase, according to Hanlon and Ayres’ analysis:

According to the analysis, roughly 11 million American families would lose some or all of the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which provides a tax break on college tuition payments, at an average cost of $1,100 each. About 12 million would lose part or all of the Child Tax Credit, costing them an average of $800, and about 6 million would lose all or part of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which saves each recipient an average of $500.

The Senate GOP plan failed last week, as the Senate instead adopted a Democratic proposal that would extend a tax cut on just the first $250,000 in income.

Reid accuses Republicans of trying to protect a handful of billionaires

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Monday questioned why Republicans in Congress believed wealthy individuals should be able to hide their political donations to campaign groups.

“Thomas Jefferson once said, ‘The end of democracy will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations,’” he said on the Senate floor. “Campaign finance reforms protected against the kind of corruption Jefferson foresaw by limiting political spending by corporations. Then the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United decision, rolling back a century of work to make elections transparent and credible. The result of Citizens United has been a flood of corporate, special-interest campaign spending by shadowy front groups with questionable motives. Not since the days of Teddy Roosevelt – a Republican who put a stop to unlimited corporate donations – has America seen this kind of out-of-control spending to influence elections.”

The DISCLOSE Act, which was up for a procedural vote in the Senate on Monday, would prevent outside campaign groups from hiding their donors. The bill would require organizations that spend $10,000 or more during an election cycle to file a report with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours and identify any donors who gave $10,000 or more. It would also require the head of any organization that puts out a political ad on TV or radio to publicly state that he or she approves the message, similar to what candidates must do now.

Senate Republicans voted to block the billon Monday. But Democrats said they plan to hold onto the Senate floor late into the night and force a second vote on the bill on Tuesday.

“Contrary to Republican claims, this legislation wouldn’t require organizations to turn over membership rosters or lists of grassroots donors,” Reid added. “Rather, it would prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from using front groups to shield their donations from disclosure. Yet my Republican colleagues – with rare exception – have lined up against this common-sense legislation.”

“Their newfound opposition to transparency makes one wonder who they’re trying to protect. Perhaps Republicans want to shield the handful of billionaires willing to contribute nine figures to sway a close presidential election?”

Watch video, uploaded to YouTube by Senate Democrats, below:

Senate Democrats blast GOP for voting against transparency, begin ‘midnight vigil’

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

Senate Democrats on Monday blasted their Republican colleagues for voting against the DISCLOSE Act and plan to give speeches late into the night during a “midnight vigil.”

“Democrats sought to require large political donors to disclose their identities so voters could judge their motivations for themselves,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. “This wasn’t a new concept. In fact, many Republicans who blocked this bill today once supported it. But today those same Republicans chose to side with powerful, anonymous donors, who like their nominee Mitt Romney appear to believe they get to play by their own set of rules.”

“Judging by Republicans’ vote today and Governor Romney’s refusal to release more tax returns, Republicans have clearly decided that secrecy is more important to them than being straight with the American people,” he added.

The DISCLOSE Act would prevent outside campaign groups from hiding their donors. The bill would require organizations that spend $10,000 or more during an election cycle to file a report with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours and identify any donors who gave $10,000 or more.

It would also require the head of any organization that puts out a political ad on TV or radio to publicly state that he or she approves the message, similar to what candidates must do now.

The legislation would prevent partisan “social welfare” organizations like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS from being able to hide wealthy donors. The IRS requires that nonprofit “social welfare” organizations “operate primarily to further the common good.” The organizations are prohibited from running ads in support of or opposition to candidates for public office. But groups like Crossroads GPS have attempted to circumvent the ban on partisan activities by attacking Democratic candidates in ads without explicitly urging people to vote against them.

The DISCLOSE Act was killed in a 51 to 44 party-line vote on a procedural motion. The bill needed at least 60 votes to move forward.

Republicans said the legislation was an attempt to intimidate wealthy donors and an attack on free speech rights.

“As a result of this legislation, advocacy groups ranging from the NAACP to the Sierra Club to the Chamber of Commerce — all of whom already disclose their donors to the IRS — would now be forced to subject their members to public intimidation and harassment,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said.

Democrats hope to force a second vote on the bill on Tuesday.

“We recognize that you don’t win every fight in round one, and this is a fight worth continuing,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), the lead sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act.

“Putting an end to secret election spending by special interests is an essential step in protecting middle class priorities. For that reason, we are committed to continuing the debate on the DISCLOSE Act late into the night and asking for a second vote tomorrow if need be. We can’t let the special interests off the hook after just one round.”

After Enthusiastically Using Filibuster, GOP Begs Democrats Not To Filibuster Cut, Cap, And Balance Plan

By Travis Waldron/Think Progress




Since 2009, Senate Republicans have forced virtually every bill to pass the 60-vote cloture threshold before it could come to the floor for actual debate. Thisunprecedented obstruction forced Senate Democrats to find 60 supporting votes — as opposed to a simple majority of 51 — to pass health care reform, financial regulatory reform, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the economic stimulus package, and nearly every other bill they considered, and killed critical legislation like a climate change bill, immigration reform, and the DREAM Act. In addition, Republicans have successfully filibustered an unheard-of number of judicial and cabinet-level nominees, hindering the efficacy of both branches.

But after they failed to get 60 votes for their Cut, Cap, and Balance plan last week, a group of Senate Republicans is urging Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to bring it to the floor for debate, thus allowing it to pass with only 51 votes. The senators sent Reid a letter today, obtained by Slate’s Dave Weigel:

We urge Senate Majority Leader Reid to reconsider the tabled bill and let the Senate debate it fully, in full view of the American people — so that it may garner the four or five votes that it needs to pass — and to agree that it should pass without invoking the 60 vote cloture threshold in recognition of the urgency of the matter.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) made the same argument on Fox News this afternoon, saying the bill was only tabled, not defeated, and Reid should bring it to the floor for debate.

The Republican approach ignores numerous obstacles for the bill. If Reid brought it to the floor, it would need to gain five more votes to pass the Senate with just a simple majority. Even if it passed, President Obama has promised to veto it. And even if Obama signed it into law, it would still need approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress to send the actual Balanced Budget Amendment to the states for ratification. The House passed the bill, but would need roughly 57 more votes to approve the amendment, while the Senate would need to find 21 more votes.

Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), continue to cling to the notion that their radical Balanced Budget Amendment — which would force draconian spending cuts and exacerbate the pain of future recessions — is a serious plan in the search for a debt deal. Even less serious than the actual plan, however, is asking Democrats not to use the very rules that have allowed Republicans to grind the Senate to a halt for the last three years.

Medicare-Ending GOP Budget Dies In Senate With 5 Republican Defectors

By Alex Seitz-Wald 

Moments ago, the Senate killed the House Republican budget, authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), that would effectively end Medicare. The billpassed the House in April with only 4 Republicans out of 242 voting against it, but in the intervening weeks, the plan proved to be extremely unpopular, as demonstrated by numerous confrontations at constituent town halls, devastating polling, and most recently, by the an upset in a special election that hinged largely on the Medicare plan. When the bill finally came up for a vote tonight in the Senate, five Republicans out of the 42 voted against the plan, making the final vote 40-57. Watch it:

As the plan proves more and more toxic, Republican House members may regret their votes. But perhaps they should have considered that before hastily voting on a radical plan to privatize and effectively dismantle one of the cornerstones of the American social safety net.

UPDATEThe Republican defectors were Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Rand Paul (R-KY). (Unlike the others, Paul voted against it because it wasn't radical enough.) Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) did not vote

After Calling Judicial Filibusters Unconstitutional, Republican Senators Line Up Behind Judicial Filibuster

By Ian Millhiser

The Senate just voted by a 52-43 majority to end the GOP’s filibuster of Professor Goodwin Liu’s nomination to a federal appeal court — which, in the bizarro world that is the U.S. Senate, means that Liu’s nomination will not move forward. The vote was entirely along party lines, except that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted “yea” and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) voted “nay.”

Just six short years ago, Republicans sang a very different tune when it came to judicial filibusters. Senate Republicans almost unanimously declared filibusters of judicial nominees to be a horrific betrayal of their constitutional role. Many Republicans outright declared judicial filibusters to be unconstitutional. Here is a representative sample of how current GOP senators felt about such filibusters when a Republican was in the White House:

• Lamar Alexander (R-TN): “I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.”

• Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA): “Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It’s the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it.”

• Tom Coburn (R-OK): “If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent.  That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee.  And that happened for 200 years.”

• John Cornyn (R-TX): “We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations.

• Mike Crapo (R-ID): “Until this Congress, not one of the President’s nominees has been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote.”

• Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60, and that’s essentially what we’d be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster.”

• Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “The Constitution of the United States is at stake.  Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges.  The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.  But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules.  They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”

Sadly, this willingness to declare something unconstitutional when it suits them and then pretend the Constitution says something else entirely when the political winds change is par for the GOP’s course. Republicans invented a previously unheard of constitutional objection to the Affordable Care Act, they’ve called everything fromSocial Security to Medicare to child labor laws unconstitutional, and they’ve even pretended that the Constitution allows them to strip Americans of their citizenship.

Sen. Nelson’s vote against Liu, however, is utterly inexplicable. When Bush was naming judges, Nelson voted to end cloture on Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a radical tenther who once compared liberalism to “slavery” and Social Security to a “socialist revolution.” It is impossible to imagine what standard Nelson applied that would keep a mainstream voice like Liu off the court, but allow Judge Brown to shape the law.

Filibuster To Protect Big Oil Welfare Fueled By Oil Money

By Brad Johnson 

Tonight, Republicans filibustered the majority’s attempt to repeal $21 billion in subsidies for the big five oil companies — the same companies that madeover $30 billion in profits in just the first three months of 2011. While three out of four Americans believe Exxon Mobil and the other oil majors should pay their fair share, instead of receiving taxpayer welfare, the oil-friendly Senate split 52 to 48 to end the subsidies. Though the majority of the Senate voted to repeal these oil tax breaks, the procedural motion required a 60 vote threshold. An analysis of campaign contribution records shows the gusher of dirty cash that fueled the filibuster:

A Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis finds that the 48 senators who sided with Big Oil received over $21 million in career oil contributions, while 52 senators who sided with the American people received only $5.4 million in contributions. Each senator who voted for Big Oil received on average more than four times as much oil cash as those who voted to end the subsidies.

While eight Republican senators voted for a bill that included a repeal of tax breaks for big oil in 2007, only Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine voted with the Democrats in supporting ending taxpayer handouts to big oil tonight. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Ben Nelson (D-NE) joined the Republicans to protect the oil companies’ corporate welfare.

Senate Republicans Introduce Bill To Abolish The EPA

By Brad Johnson

Senate Republicans have introduced legislation to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, established 40 years ago by President Richard Nixon to give Americans clean air and water. The bill, introduced by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), would merge the EPA, which enforces environmental laws, with the Department of Energy, which manages nuclear energy and energy research, into one department.

Burr’s statement announcing his bill to eliminate the EPA argues that “duplicative functions” can be eliminated, even though the two departments are completely different:

U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) introduced a bill that wouldconsolidate the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency into a single, new agency called the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE). The bill would provide cost savings by combining duplicative functions while improving the administration of energy and environmental policies by ensuring a coordinated approach.

In January, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed abolishing the EPA, and several House Republicans have supported that goal, while making numerous attempts to hamstring limits on industrial polluters.

Burr’s bill has fifteen co-sponsors, all of them global warming deniers: Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Enzi (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), John McCain (R-AZ), Dan Coats (R-IN), Richard Shelby (R-AL), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), David Vitter (R-LA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT).

Senate Dems unanimous: Time for filibuster reform

By Daniel Tencer

All Senate Democrats returning to Congress next year have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking him to take up filibuster reform first thing in the new year.

It's a sign that the Republicans' use of the filibuster at historically high rates to block Democratic legislation may have backfired, and coalesced the political capital needed to change Senate rules.

The letter, delivered this week, "expresses general frustration with what Democrats consider unprecedented obstruction and asks Reid to take steps to end those abuses," the National Journal reports.

Among the chief revisions that Democrats say will likely be offered: Senators could not initiate a filibuster of a bill before it reaches the floor unless they first muster 40 votes for it, and they would have to remain on the floor to sustain it. That is a change from current rules, which require the majority leader to file a cloture motion to overcome an anonymous objection to a motion to proceed, and then wait 30 hours for a vote on it.

"There have been more filibusters since 2006 than the total between 1920 and 1980," Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) says.

Udall has proposed a plan that would allow Democrats, who will hold 51 seats in the new Senate, to change the rules using a simple majority. Currently, Senate rules require that a change to the rules, such as a change to filibusters, be agreed to by an even larger super-majority -- 67 votes -- than the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

But Udall says this is unconstitutional, because the Constitution allows each new Senate to change its own rules. Udall's "Constitutional Option" would see rule changes made with 51 votes -- just enough for the Senate to change filibuster rules, if Democratic senators' unanimity on the issue holds. (An 1892 Supreme Court ruling agrees with Udall's argument.)

Changing filibuster rules is not without historical precedent. In 1917, the bar for a filibuster was set at 67 votes, and in 1975 it was reduced to 60.

Another proposal, put forward by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), would see the threshold for a filibuster fall as the filibuster goes on.

"On the first cloture attempt, sixty votes would be required. But, over a period of days or weeks, the number of votes required would fall to a simple majority of fifty-one senators," he wrote inThe Nation.

Regardless of the specific shape of the filibuster reform -- which could come before the Senate as early as Jan. 5 -- the very push to change the rules shows that the GOP tactic of heavily using filibusters may have backfired, Ezra Klein argues at the Washington Post.

"They say elections have consequences. So too, it turns out, does obstruction," he writes. If the Democrats don't lose their nerve, the Republican minority will soon "labor under the knowledge that misuse of the rules will mean reform of the rules."

The push to change filibuster rules isn't limited to the halls of Congress. A coalition of progressive organizations has come together to form Fix the Senate Now, a pressure group meant to support the effort to reform Senate rules. Among the organizations backing Fix the Senate Now are the AFL-CIO, the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, SEIU, the Sierra Club and United Steelworkers.

"In the US Senate, there are back room deals, secret holds, and filibuster rules that allow a handful of senators to stop the rest from making any progress. Senators don’t even get to debate about really important legislation on the Senate floor, let alone vote, and no one is held accountable. But the rules can be changed by a majority vote at the start of the next Congress," the group implores.

Conservative observers have accused the group of "astroturfing" the filibuster reform movement.

And as the effort to change the filibuster gains steam, Republican backers -- afraid of a loss of influence in the upper chamber -- have begun to argue that no reform is necessary.

"The bottom line is this: the Senate was never intended to be a democratic body, a reflection of one man, one vote," writes "Vladimir" at the Red State blog. "It is a deliberative body, and a consensus-building body. The filibuster has an important role to play in making that possible."

M.C.L Comment: I wished the Senate Dems thought of this two years ago when Senator Barack Obama became President-elect Barack Obama. It shouldn't been too much of a shock to Democrats that the Republicans in the senate would use every trick in the book to slow up or kill progress for political gains.

Kyl On 9/11 First Responders Bill: ‘Why Would They Need $6 Billion?’

By Alex Seitz-Wald

Two weeks ago, Senate Republicans unanimously filibustered a bill to provide health benefits to the firefighters, police officers, and construction workers who were the first responders to the terror attacks on 9/11 and contracted illnesses as a result of exposure to toxic chemicals during their work. Republicans have been callously blocking the bill, saying it has a lower priority than extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, that they don’t want to “hurry,” and telling the responders — some of whom have already died from their illnesses — “I can’t help you.”

This weekend, New York Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) Chuck Schumer (D) announced they had modified the bill, reducing its overall pricetag and changing the way it is paid for, and thus gained some GOP support. But Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the number two Senate Republican, is still not pleased. Appearing on Fox News today, Kyl pretended he had “no idea” what was in the bill, and even wondered if these heroes needed the help:

HOST: Will you change your vote to a yes on the bill, knowing those changes?

KYL: This has been a moving target since day one. … This is something that they came up with to just put directly on the floor of the Senate,without any hearings, without any opportunities to figure out what it should be like. [...]

I have no idea how this thing would work. So they reduced it from $7 billion to $6 billion — I have no idea whether $6 billion is a reasonable figure. … But the question is who’s responsible? Who’s at fault? Do they have the money? Is the insurance adequate to cover it? Wasn’t the previous settlement adequate? Why would they need $6 billion?

Watch it:

Kyl’s feigned ignorance on the bill is pathetic. As ThinkProgress noted when Kyl tried to pass off the same phony objections last week, the Senate and House version of the bill have been available to Kyl and anyone else to read since 2009, and there was in fact a Senate hearing on it in June, even though he insists it never happened. Meanwhile, changes to bill have been made at the GOP’s behest. So to claim that he has “no idea” what’s in the bill is negligent, at best.

As for Kyl’s list of questions, these have all been answered in the hearing and elsewhere. The bill will provide funding for eight years to monitor and treat injuries stemming from exposure to toxic dust and debris, as well as to reopen the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund to provide help for job and economic losses. The case of Joe Picurro, who volunteered to cut steel at Ground Zero and died in October as a result, illustrates why these heroes need $6 billion. Picurro fought with his insurance company and the government for years, before finally receiving workers’ compensation in 2006, but only after “he was down to his last nickel.” His wife, Laura has “had to scrimp, scrape and borrow to make ends meet, care for Joe – and stave off eviction.” Meanwhile, Kyl and his colleagues have spent the last year fighting tooth and nail to give the wealthiest two percent of Americans another $700 billion, and to cut estate taxes to help children of the richest 0.2 percent of households.

On Thursday, former GOP Arkansas Gov. and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said “every Republican” should support the bill.

As for Kyl’s cowardly attempt to hide behind the way the bill has moved through the Senate, is Kyl really going to jeopardize the health of thousands of American heroeslike Picurro to claim the moral high ground on arcane Senate procedure, which only affects him and his 40 GOP colleagues?

UPDATENew York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) strongly urged the Senate to pass the bill today at a press conference with firefighters and police officers, saying, "The time for excuses is over."

UPDATEThis afternoon on Fox, former New York Republican Gov. George Pataki shot down each one of Kyl's concerns, saying "he's raising valid questions, but I think they've been answered." Pataki pleaded with the Senate to finish the bill before recessing, saying, "this is the right thing to do for the people who inspired America, and this is the right time to do it." "It's hard to argue with any of that," Fox host Shep Smith responded:

Senate Republicans Vote Unanimously Against Bill To Help Guarantee Fair Pay For Women

By Rebecca Lefton

Today, Senate Republicans voted unanimously against legislation to close the pay gap between women and men. The Senate voted 58-41 against allowing debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help end discriminatory pay practices against women. It had already passed the House.

More than 45 years after passage of the Equal Pay Act, the pay gap shockingly persists with women still earning on average 77 cents to every man’s dollar. According to the National Women’s Law Center, “This persistent pay gap translates to more than $10,000 in lost wages per year for the average female worker.” The gap is even worse for women of color: African-American women earn 61 cents and Latinas earn 52 cents for every dollar a white non-Hispanic man earns.

This afternoon on MSNBC, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said it was “outrageous” and “egregious” that “these senators voted against fair pay.” Watch it:

Women are half of all U.S. workers and mothers are the primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners in nearly two-thirds of American families. The Paycheck Fairness Act would be critical to strengthening the economic security of these families. The bill would have updated the landmark Equal Pay Act of 1963 by closing loopholes, strengthening incentives to prevent pay discrimination, and prohibiting retaliation against workers who inquire about employers’ wage practices or disclose their own wages. The act would have also addressed pay secrecy, which is a prevalent problem prohibiting employees from knowing whether discriminatory practices are occurring.

Not a single Republican supported the bill, including Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who had previously voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which removed barriers blocking workers from seeking compensation from discriminatory pay practices. At the time, Snowe said, “This new law[] sends a clear message to the American people that this Congress is committed to these core principles and will continue to work in bipartisan fashion to break down the barriers of wage discrimination in our nation.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), who also voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Act, was the lone Democrat voting against the bill today. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was not present for the vote.

Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has a long record of opposing women’s rights urged Congress to vote against the act, as it did with Lilly Ledbetter in 2009.

Update In response to the vote, President Obama put out a strong statement slamming the Senate GOP for blocking the bill: "I am deeply disappointed that a minority of Senators have prevented the Paycheck Fairness Act from finally being brought up for a debate and receiving a vote. This bill passed in the House almost two years ago; today, it had 58 votes to move forward, the support of the majority of Senate, and the support of the majority of Americans. ... But a partisan minority of Senators blocked this commonsense law." M.C.L Comment: Can we finally put the end to the myth that Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are moderate Republicans?

Senate Republicans block measure to provide additional benefits to homeless veterans.

By Ben Armbruster

Today, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) brought her bill — the Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans With Children Act — to the Senate floor seeking unanimous consent. Murray said the bill would “expand assistance for homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children and would increase funding and extend federal grant programs to address the unique challenges faced by these veterans.” However, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) objected on behalf of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to this seemingly non-controversial issue:

McCONNELL: Madam president, reserving the right to object and I will have to object on behalf of my colleague Sen. Coburn from Oklahoma. He has concerns about this legislation, particularly as he indicates in a letter that I’ll ask the Senate to appear on the record that it be paid for up front so that the promises that makes the Veterans are in fact kept. So madam president I object.

Watch it:

“This is pretty low, even for Republicans,” the Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen said. While Murray pledged to continue to fight for the bill’s passage, Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) spokesperson said “Republicans have their priorities backwards — according to them, it’s OK to give tax breaks to CEOs who send American jobs overseas, but not to help out-of-work Americans and homeless veteran.”

Protesting Health Reform, GOP Attempts To Bring Senate Hearings To A Standstill By Blocking All Proceedings

By Amanda Terkel

There is a little-known rule in the Senate stating that hearings can’t happen after 2:00 p.m. each day without unanimous consent. However, every day, at the start of business, the Senate generally agrees, by unanimous consent, to waive this rule and continue with the necessary business of holding hearings. Here is the rule:

5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the rules, when the Senate is in session, no committee of the Senate or any subcommittee thereof may meet, without special leave, after the conclusion of the first two hours after the meeting of the Senate commenced and in no case after two o’clock postmeridian unless consent therefor has been obtained from the majority leader and the minority leader (or in the event of the absence of either of such leaders, from his designee). The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall not apply to the Committee on Appropriations or the Committee on the Budget. The majority leader or his designee shall announce to the Senate whenever consent has been given under this subparagraph and shall state the time and place of such meeting. The right to make such announcement of consent shall have the same priority as the filing of a cloture motion.

Republicans, however, are now refusing to give unanimous consent and are blocking the hearings. Today, during a Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing on transparency, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) announced that he had to stop the proceedings because of Republican blocks:

I have just been advised by my staff that on the floor of the Senate there has been a move to stop all the proceedings in hearings that are going on in the Senate, and we are compelled to stop at this point in time. And I regret it, but there are rules here when we reach point in time and unless there’s unanimous consent to proceed for — as you may recall — unless there’s unanimous consent in the Senate to be able to proceed, we can only go on for so long and then we have to stop our hearings. And the whistle has blown. Unfortunately, we and all the other committees and subcommittees that are holding hearings have to, at this time, cease. I feel very badly about that. It’s not my doing.

Watch it:

ThinkProgress spoke to a Homeland Committee staffer who said that the committee’s work would be significantly disrupted if Republicans refuse to give unanimous consent throughout the week. The AP also reported today that Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) had a hearing on the bark beetle canceled today “after Republicans angry over the passage of health insurance reform legislation blocked it by using an obscure Senate rule requiring a unanimous consent to hold hearings scheduled after 2 p.m.”

Dmeocratic staffers on the Hill told ThinkProgress that they anticipate Republicans will not only continue blocking hearings for the rest of the week, but also delay or block all sorts of minor, routine measures. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) office did not reply to a request for comment.

Update Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) office put out a statement this afternoon responding to the GOP blocks:

Senator McCain’s promised obstruction comes to reality just a day later. "The Party of No" wouldn’t even agree to let Senate committees meet today. Ironically, as they make false claims about transparency regarding health reform, they’re shutting down a committee hearing today on transparency in government.

The bottom line is that as millions of Americans are learning about the immediate benefits of health reform, Republicans are throwing a temper tantrum and grinding important Senate business to a halt.