It’s a crisis in Crimea! Russian troops have crossed the border. The region’s citizens have voted to break away from Ukraine. And all the while, the specter of Vladimir Putin looms large, hungrily eyeing other territories that once belonged to the Soviet Union.
At least, that’s the story being told on the Senate floor, where legislators from both parties are alternating angst-ridden speeches over the newly emboldened Putin.
But if Congress really sees a crisis, nothing about their response shows it. The Senate spent last week out of session without approving the roughly $1 billion aid package to Ukraine that so many members insisted was so urgently needed.
The Senate voted 78-17 Monday in a procedural matter that moves them toward a Ukraine aid bill, but don’t be fooled: It’s only the first step in a long line of procedural wrangling that as of yet has no clear path to the finish line.
Technically, Monday’s vote was just a cloture vote (meaning it needed support from 60 senators) on a motion to proceed on the bill. That motion starts a 30-hour clock for the Senate to proceed to a debate on the bill. Thereafter, the chamber will need another successful cloture vote to officially take up the legislation.
It is unclear whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would allow any votes on amendments to the Ukraine bill, which could reignite a perennial fight with Republicans over process. After all that is resolved, they can move to a straight up-or-down vote to pass it.
Of course, the package’s successful completion through all those votes is far from certain.
Lawmakers are divided over a part of the proposal that would change the conditions under which the U.S. contributes to the International Monetary Fund.
Some Republicans, particularly in the House, are objecting to the changes, which would boost the fund’s ability to provide aid to countries in a crisis like the Ukraine and bolster the responsibility of other nations.
The House is also working on a Ukraine-aid bill. Their version does not include the IMF changes — and the chamber’s Republican leadership is dead-set against them. On March 6, the House passed a bill to provide $1 billion in loan guarantees. This week it is working on additional legislation to support independence and economic reforms in the Ukraine and wage sanctions against Russia.
The IMF reforms, however, are a priority for Democrats and the administration.
“We must have IMF reform,” Secretary of State John Kerry said at a Senate hearing. “It would be a terrible message to the Ukraine not to be able to follow through” on boosting the fund’s lending capacity.
But when pressed later in the House, Kerry said, “I want both, and I want them both now…. But if I can’t have one, we have got to have aid; we’ve just got to get the aid immediately. We can’t be toying around here at a critical moment for Ukraine.”
House aides, who do not see a compromise on the horizon, say they hope that the Senate will take up the House bills, which together include essentially the same set of measures, minus the IMF piece. Senate aides argue they will have to wait and see what Tuesday’s party-caucus luncheons bring. Several lawmakers traveled to Ukraine over the recess and will likely discuss their Ukraine legislation strategies in those meetings.
Ultimately though, to solve the Ukraine stalemate in Congress, many analysts argue that Senate Democratic leaders and the administration will have to relent and be prepared to settle for less on the IMF measures.
“It will pass without the IMF reforms,” said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow with the liberal Center for American Progress. “It might end up with some hortatory language or something like that, but they are not going to make it binding.”
Some analysts fear the outcome, including Steven Bucci, a foreign and national security director with the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“I’m concerned that we will end up in a deadlock looking more impotent than we already look,” he said.
What We're Following See More »
Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.
Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”
Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."
In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-expected primary battle behind her, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) is no longer going on the air in upcoming primary states. “Team Clinton hasn’t spent a single cent in … California, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon and West Virginia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “campaign has spent a little more than $1 million in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone backer in the Senate, said the candidate should end his presidential campaign if he’s losing to Hillary Clinton after the primary season concludes in June, breaking sharply with the candidate who is vowing to take his insurgent bid to the party convention in Philadelphia.”
The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."