ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Charles Schumer

Immigration

Top Opponent Of Immigration Reform Totally Loses It During Immigration Hearing

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tore into conservative critics who have sought to exploit the Boston bombings to delay immigration reform, eliciting a strong rebuke from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

“The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of immigration reform,” Schumer noted during Monday morning’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “The Chairman has a very open process to review ways to improve the bill offer an amendment when we start markup in May and let’s vote on it.” He then sought to dissuade lawmakers from using the events of last week to slow walk the bipartisan bill proposed last week by the Gang of 8, but his comments were met with anger from the Republicans on the committee:

SCHUMER: I say that to those pointing to what happened, terrible tragedy in Boston as, I would say, an excuse for not doing a bill or delaying in many months or years.

GRASSLEY: I never said that. I never said that!

SCHUMER: I never said you did, Sir.

GRASSLEY: I didn’t say anything about delaying the bill.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): Mr. Chairman, I don’t appreciate

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Let me finish. We are going to have probably the most open process on this. It will be debate in the committee, we will have time for it.

Watch it:

During a hearing on Friday, Grassley argued that “[g]iven the events of this week, it’s important to understand the gaps and loopholes” in the immigration system. “While we don’t yet know the immigration status of people who terrorized the the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.”

Immigration

Gang Of 8 Senators: Boston Bombing Should ‘Urge Us To Act Quicker’ On Immigration Reform

Lawmakers part of the so-called Senate Gang of 8 are pushing back against conservatives who are trying to exploit the Boston bombing to slow down the legislative momentum for immigration reform. On Friday, during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s first hearing on a new bipartisan immigration proposal, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said that “[g]iven the events of this week, it’s important to understand the gaps and loopholes” in the immigration system and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) suggested that reform should primarily focus on securing the borders.

But during an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) argued that the Boston incident should motivate lawmakers to expedite the immigration debate, as immigration reform bill offered by lawmakers would close dangerous loopholes in the existing system:

GRAHAM: But in terms of immigration, I think now is the time to bring all the 11 million out of the shadows and find out who they are. Most of them are here to work, but we may find some terrorists in our midst who have been hiding in the shadows. When it comes to the entry/exit visa system. The 19 hijackers all students overstayed their visas and the system didn’t capture that. We’re going to fix that… So we are addressing a broken immigration system. What happened in Boston and international terrorism I think should urge us to act quicker, not slower when it comes to getting the 11 million identified. [...]

SCHUMER: And in fact asylum, which the Tsarnaev family came here on was greatly toughened up a few years after. They might not have gotten asylum under the present law.

Schumer added that the leading opponents of the Gang of 8′s bill “can make any amendments they want.” “And we go to the floor any one of the hundred senators could pose amendments,” he said.

During a separate appearance on Meet The Press, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) — another member of the group — added that “there are four specific provisions in this immigration reform bill that will make America safer,” noting that the measure will bolster security along the southern border and institute a system of employment verification.

Immigration

Immigration Reform Deal Close Senators Say, Could Be ‘Rolled Out Next Week’

Key lawmakers involved in ongoing bipartisan discussions on a comprehensive immigration reform bill signaled optimism on the Sunday morning talk show circuit, with Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) — two members of the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” negotiators working on the reform bill — telling NBC’s Meet The Press that a bill could be introduced as soon as next week in light of a tentative deal on guest worker programs struck by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO.

“With the agreement between business and labor, every major policy issue has been resolved on the Gang of Eight,” said Schumer. Flake was a little more cautious, stressing that senators still have “a ways to go in terms of looking at the language and making sure that it’s everything we thought it would be,” but that they were “closer, certainly.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) echoed those sentiments on a separate appearance on CNN, stating that business, labor groups, and the senators themselves have reached a “conceptual” agreement that still needs some details to be filled, but that a bipartisan deal “will be rolled out next week.”

Disagreements over the guest worker program were one of the last remaining sticking points in negotiations between business and labor groups. Under the tentative deal struck Friday, the U.S. would issue anywhere from 20,000 to 200,000 guest worker visas annually, with the number of visas issued in any given year “to grow and shrink according to economic needs.” According to the New York Times, the number of guest workers allowed in to the country would “increase as the nation’s unemployment rate fell and the number of job openings increased,” and a federal commission would be established to “assess the need for guest workers, with an eye to shortages in specific industries and communities.”

Labor and business groups also reached a tentative agreement on wage levels for guest workers, with negotiators agreeing that “guest workers would be paid the prevailing industry wage previously used in the guest worker program.”

Resolving the guest worker issue provides a much-needed boost to Senate efforts, as bipartisan negotiators had already reached agreements over other challenging aspects of a comprehensive immigration reform bill, including border security and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. But despite the senators’ optimism, the politically-charged nature of many of the bill’s provisions could present snags as actual legislation works its way through the committee process. On Saturday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) — another Gang of Eight member — urged caution against moving too fast to pass legislation, taking exception to Senate Democrats’ push to get a bill onto the full Senate floor as fast as possible. In a letter sent to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Rubio suggested that he would slow down upcoming immigration legislation by calling for committee hearings on the issue.

Security

Dem Senator Promotes Unsubstantiated Claim That Iran Is Enriching Weapons-Grade Uranium

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told constituents in a letter thanking them for supporting diplomacy between the United States and Iran that the Islamic Republic — contrary to available evidence — is enriching weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear weapon and that unnamed “experts” have confirmed it.

“Thank you for contacting me to express your support for diplomacy between the United States and Iran,” the letter dated March 12, 2013 and signed by Schumer begins, adding, “I share your concern over the United States’ relationship with Iran and I am committed to supporting President Obama in advancing his diplomatic outreach.” But the letter later makes unsubstantiated claims about Iran’s nuclear program:

In the past decade, Iran has developed nuclear technologies which U.S. and other nations’ intelligence agencies believe are intended to produce nuclear weapons. In November of 2007, the Administration released a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) giving evidence that Iran had operated a clandestine nuclear-weapons program until 2003. The nation continues to enrich uranium into weapons-grade nuclear materials in violation of United Nations resolutions, and in November of 2009 disclosed that it has a partially constructed enrichment facility near Qom. Although President Ahmadinejad maintains that these facilities are designed to generate civilian nuclear energy, experts say that the type of fuel that they produce is sufficient to arm a nuclear warhead.

It’s unclear what experts Schumer or his staff are referring to, but the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has said that Iran has thus far only enriched uranium up to 20 percent purity, mainly for the purpose of medical research. “Weapons-grade” nuclear material is uranium that is enriched to 90 percent. While the IAEA and U.S. and Israeli intelligence believe the Iranians have not yet made the decision to go that far, U.S. officials have said they think Iran is keeping its options open. Indeed, as Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said, “I think they’re keeping themselves in a position to make that decision.” (Schumer’s office has not responded to inquires about the letter before publication of this story.)

“What I’ve said, and I will say today, is that the intelligence we have is they have not made the decision to proceed with the development a nuclear weapon,” then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said last month. In fact, Israeli intelligence officials have said that Iran’s nuclear program is, while progressing, “advancing slower than Iran had hoped,” in the words of Israeli military intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi.
Read more

Justice

Schumer Rips GOP Senator’s Pro-Gun Propaganda: ‘That Just Is Dumb’

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) debunked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’s pro gun advocacy during a debate on Meet the Press this Sunday, dismissing his arguments as “just dumb.”

Discussing his opposition to President Obama’s gun safety plan, Cruz suggested that increasing gun access among poor women in urban neighborhoods could reduce violent crime, argued that an assault weapon ban would be unconstitutional and accused the administration of exploiting the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut to advance a “partisan agenda.” Schumer, a long-time gun safety advocate fired back. He pointed out that the Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller established an individual right to bear arms, but gave the government wide latitude to regulate guns:

SCHUMER: Heller also said that there should be reasonable limitations, that they’re allowed reasonable limitations. I don’t think that lady needs an assault weapon. I don’t think she needs a 100-round clip. I don’t think, for instance, that those things would help her in any way. So so to say she has a right to bear arms: yes. To say, just like on the first amendment — we say you can’t scream “fire” in a crowd falsely, we have anti-pornography laws, anti-libel laws. There are reasonable limitations. And the NRA [National Rifle Association], in many instances, doesn’t believe in any limitation at all. That’s not unconstitutional. That just is dumb.

Watch it:

Indeed, to quote Justice Scalia’s decision in Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The ruling also allows limitations on ownership of “dangerous and unusual” weapons — like, for example, the ones restricted in assault weapons bans.

Moreover, the idea that poor urban neighborhoods would be helped by easier access to guns has it exactly backwards. David Kennedy, an expert on urban gun violence at City University of New York, has found that lax gun laws unequivocally contribute heavily to violence in cities: “The more we have learned about how concentrated gun offending is – this is, for all practical purposes, entirely a problem of seasoned criminal offenders – gang activity and drug market activity and robbery, homicide, all that sort of thing – the more evident it’s become that there are these very commonsense ways of intervening with them to quite dramatically sometimes reduce their violence. And the commonsense package on this has always been to work both sides. You do something about how to get guns and you do something about how they use guns.”

Security

Hagel Wins Over Key Democrats In Defense Secretary Bid

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — rumored to be a potential roadblock in the confirmation of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, today announced his support of Hagel’s bid — following a lengthy meeting between the two.

Schumer was thought by many to be a bellwether on whether coordinated attacks on Hagel’s stance on Iran and Israel by neoconservatives were having the desired effect. In the aftermath of a ninety minute meeting between the two on Monday, Schumer made clear that the smear tactics of the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin and others had not swayed his decision, announcing his support in a prepared statement:

Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel, I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation. I encourage my Senate colleagues who have shared my previous concerns to also support him. [...]

I know some will question whether Senator Hagel’s assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post. But I don’t think so. Senator Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago. His views are genuine, and reflect this new reality.

In his statement, Schumer also noted that Hagel provided assurances on his commitment to female and LGBT service members, another concern of several members of the Senate.

By announcing his support, Schumer joins Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in firmly stating their backing of Hagel in the coming confirmation fight. “After speaking extensively with Sen. Hagel by phone last week and after receiving a detailed written response to my questions late today, I will support Sen. Hagel’s nomination as secretary of Defense,” Boxer said in a statement.

Update

In an attempt to push Schumer, the Emergency Committee for Israel — one of the groups leading the charge against Hagel — took out a full page in today’s New York Times urging readers to call Schumer and Sen. Kristin Gillibrand (D-NY) to oppose Hagel. Schumer’s announcement seems to make that ad moot.

Economy

How The New York Times Misrepresented Chuck Schumer On Taxes

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) has made it clear that he doesn’t accept the parameters of Republican leadership’s idea that revenue can be raised by further lowering top income tax rates. In October, he said Congress “ought to scrap” any such plan, and yesterday, he decried the GOP’s “Rumpelstiltskin fairy tale” that cutting tax rates could drive new revenues through dynamic scoring.

The New York Times, however, reported today that Schumer had indicated a willingness to consider a tax plan that keeps the top tax rate at 35 percent, the point it reached after the Bush tax cuts:

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, extended an olive branch to Republicans, suggesting Thursday that he could accept a tax plan that leaves the top tax rate at 35 percent, provided that loophole closings would hit the rich, not the middle class. He previously had said that he would accept nothing short of a return to the top tax rate of Bill Clinton’s presidency, 39.6 percent.

“If you kept them at 35, it’s still much harder to do,” Mr. Schumer said, “but obviously there is push and pull, and there are going to be compromises.”

Schumer’s full quote, however, doesn’t seem to make that same suggestion. After Schumer told reporters that it was “counter-intuitive” to think substantial revenue could be raised by lowering tax rates, as Republicans have suggested, he was asked about maintaining current rates. Though he conceded that there may be compromise, he didn’t indicate that he would accept such a deal and restated his belief that the election was a clear mandate for raising the high-income rate to Clinton-era levels:

SCHUMER: Well, you know, if you kept them at 35, it’s still much harder to do, but obviously there’s push and pull and there’s going to be compromises. The President’s view, my view, the overwhelming view that we ran on and succeeded on-that exit polls show the American people agreed with us on is let the rate go to 39.6 for the highest-end people.

Schumer has been clear about his insistence on allowing the high-income Bush tax cuts to expire, and despite the New York Times’ report of recent remarks, his position doesn’t seem to have changed.

Economy

Democratic Senator Calls Out GOP’s ‘Rumpelstiltskin Fairy Tale’ On Taxes

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) yesterday, in a move that many in the media deemed conciliatory, said that House Republicans are open to raising more revenue for the federal government, as long as it comes “as a byproduct of growing our economy, energized by a simpler, cleaner, fairer tax code, with fewer loopholes and lower rates for all.”

Believing that lower tax rates will magically raise revenue thanks to a growing economy is a favorite conservative fantasy. (It’s been dubbed believing in the “tax fairy.”) Today, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) responded to Boehner’s speech by calling it “a Rumpelstiltskin fairy tale“:

Schumer derided the theory that substantial revenues can be raised without increasing the tax burden on the wealthy.

“Part of his speech he talked about dynamic scoring, this idea if you cut taxes you increase revenues,” Schumer said.

“It’s about time we debunked that myth, it’s a Rumpelstiltskin fairy tale, dynamic scoring. You may remember Rumpelstiltskin was the fairy tale figure who turned straw into gold,” he added, making reference to the popular German children’s tale from the 19th century.

Many studies have shown “that tax cuts do not come anywhere close to paying for themselves over the long term.” Greg Mankiw, chair of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, called those who believe that tax cuts will result in a revenue increase “charlatans and cranks.” “There is no serious research evidence to suggest that” tax cuts pay for themselves, Republican economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin agreed. But Republican leaders still claim that such a thing will happen, all evidence to the contrary.

Economy

Democratic Senator Says Congress ‘Ought To Scrap’ Tax Reform That Cuts Rates

During a speech today at the National Press Club, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) came out against one of Washington’s current favorite ideas: tax reform that closes loopholes and removes deductions, in exchange for lowering tax rates (particularly at the top of the income scale). Schumer called for scrapping that model, and instead instituting tax reform that uses the revenue raised from eliminating loopholes and deductions to reduce the deficit:

There is perhaps no issue facing Congress that is more complex than tax reform. But for all the disagreement on taxes, ask most policymakers—Democrats, Republicans and independents alike—what the broad outlines of tax reform might look like, and you get a startlingly consistent answer: dramatically lower the rates, and broaden the tax base by getting rid of loopholes in the tax code.

This approach has a distinguished lineage: Ronald Reagan and the 1986 Democratic Congress invented it. Simpson-Bowles validated it. The Gang of Six endorsed it.

But in the upcoming talks on the fiscal cliff, we ought to scrap it.

The reason is simple. The old style of tax reform is obsolete in a 2012 world. It just doesn’t fit the times because there are two new conditions that didn’t exist in 1986, but that are staring us in the face today: a much larger, more dangerous deficit, and a dramatic increase in income inequality. Old-style tax reform could make both conditions worse.

This sort of approach certainly makes sense, as income inequality has skyrocketed over the last few decades at the same time that income tax rates on the rich have tumbled. One of the drivers of income inequality is the low rate on capital gains, which almost exclusively benefits the rich.

Schumer, unfortunately, came out against revenue-positive corporate tax reform, which would also be a good idea. The Financial Times, meanwhile, reported today that some Republicans “are shifting their tone on the prospect of increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans,” in an effort to avoid the effects of the so-called “fiscal cliff.”

Justice

Senate Democrats File New Bill To Require Disclosure Of Independent Expenditure Funders

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s controversial 5-4 majority opinion in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case specifically endorsed the idea of campaign finance disclosure. “Disclosure is the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations,” he wrote, adding that they ensure voters are informed enough about who is speaking to fully assess the content of the political message. But with a bitterly divided Federal Election Commission unable to issue regulations to enforce those principles, many political organizations have kept secret the names of the individuals and corporations funding their advertisements.

In 2010, a bill to expand disclosure passed the Democratic-controlled house of representatives, but failed by a single vote in the Senate as Republicans unified to filibuster the measure. That bill — the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act also contained provisions restricting
government contractors and foreign companies from political advertising.

Today, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and some of his Democratic colleagues unveiled a new attempt — the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 — focusing just on disclosure provisions. According to a fact sheet provided by Whitehouse’s office, the bill would require the following:

Any covered organization that spends $10,000 or more on campaign-related disbursements during an election cycle [must] file a disclosure report with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours, and [must] file a new report for each additional $10,000 or more that is spent, detailing the amount and nature of each expenditure over $1,000 and the names of all of its donors who gave $10,000 or more.

Covered organizations include super PACs and tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations. Additionally, the ads would have to list the top donors behind the message.

With outside groups spending millions and hugely unpopular, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says Democrats are hopeful that even in a more Republican congress, the bill might attract bipartisan support. The Senate’s rules committee, which Schumer chairs, will begin considering the bill at a hearing next week.

Like many of his Republican colleagues, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has indicated many times that he believes campaign finance disclosure — not limits — is the best way to ensure a just political system. With this new DISCLOSE Act, they will once again be forced to show whether they actually believe it.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up