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 »
"A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 34% of registered voters think the three presidential debates would be extremely or quite important in helping them decide whom to support for president. About 11% of voters are considered 'debate persuadables'—that is, they think the debates are important and are either third-party voters or only loosely committed to either major-party candidate."
Will he or won't he? That's the question surrounding Donald Trump and his on-again, off-again threats to bring onetime Bill Clinton paramour Gennifer Flowers to the debate as his guest. An assistant to flowers initially said she'd be there, but Trump campaign chief Kellyanne Conway "said on ABC’s 'This Week' that the Trump campaign had not invited Flowers to the debate, but she didn’t rule out the possibility of Flowers being in the audience."
NBC's Lester Holt hasn't hosted the "Nightly News" since Tuesday, as he's prepped for moderating the first presidential debate tonight—and the first of his career. He's called on a host of NBC talent to help him, namely NBC News and MSNBC chairman Andy Lack; NBC News president Deborah Turness; the news division's senior vice president of editorial, Janelle Rodriguez; "Nightly News" producer Sam Singal, "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd, senior political editor Mark Murray and political editor Carrie Dann. But during the debate itself, the only person in Holt's earpiece will be longtime debate producer Marty Slutsky.
"The House passed legislation late Thursday that would prohibit the federal government from making any cash payments to Iran, in protest of President Obama's recently discovered decision to pay Iran $1.7 billion in cash in January. And while the White House has said Obama would veto the bill, 16 Democrats joined with Republicans to pass the measure, 254-163."
In contrast to Hillary Clinton's meticulous debate practice sessions, Donald Trump "is largely shunning traditional debate preparations, but has been watching video of…Clinton’s best and worst debate moments, looking for her vulnerabilities.” Trump “has paid only cursory attention to briefing materials. He has refused to use lecterns in mock debate sessions despite the urging of his advisers. He prefers spitballing ideas with his team rather than honing them into crisp, two-minute answers.”