Tag Archives: Senate

U.S. Senate Republicans to issue revised health bill to win support

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks after Senate Republicans unveiled their version of legislation that would replace Obamacare on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S.

By Yasmeen Abutaleb and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Senate Republicans plan to issue a revised version of their healthcare bill on Monday, according to a Republican Senate aide, as the chamber’s leaders scrambled to get legislation passed ahead of a July 4 holiday recess starting on Friday.

The aide, who is familiar with the plan, did not provide details of changes in the works. Politico reported that a likely change to the bill would be to add a provision to encourage people, mainly those who are young and healthy, to enroll in insurance plans.

President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans in Congress have been pushing to repeal and replace Obamacare, Democratic former President Barack Obama’s signature domestic legislation. The House of Representatives passed its version of a healthcare bill last month.

The Senate bill unveiled last week was immediately criticized by both conservatives and moderates in the party. With Republicans holding only a 52-seat majority in the 100-seat Senate, the bill was unlikely to win passage in its initial form.

At least four conservative Republicans have expressed opposition to the draft legislation, saying it does not go far enough in repealing Obamacare.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would not comment on whether a vote on a bill would be held in the full Senate on Thursday, as originally anticipated.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office later Monday might release its assessment of the bill’s cost and impact on future budget deficits. It was not clear whether the report will also estimate how many people might lose healthcare coverage under the legislation or whether that estimate would come later.

Meanwhile, some moderate Republicans have either withheld judgment or expressed doubts about replacing Obamacare with legislation that is similar to the House version.

They are concerned that the party’s approach to healthcare would cause too many people, and especially those with low incomes, to lose insurance. Trump touted passage of the House bill as a victory but later called it “mean.”

Republicans have targeted Obamacare since it was passed in 2010, viewing it as costly government intrusion and saying individual insurance markets are collapsing. The legislation expanded health coverage to some 20 million Americans, through provisions such as mandating that individuals obtain health insurance and expanding Medicaid, the government program for the poor.

TRUMP’S INVOLVEMENT

As he did during the House negotiations, Trump has personally pushed for a Senate bill, calling fellow Republicans to mobilize support.

In the efforts by Senate Republicans to push through a bill, the party has split over a provision in the draft bill ending federal funding of Planned Parenthood, the women’s healthcare provider, for one year.

Moderates are wary of this, while conservatives have called for an end to federal funding of Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions, even though they are not performed with taxpayer dollars.

Health insurance companies are concerned about the bill’s plan to cut Medicaid and any impact on state governments as well as the prospect of losing Obamacare’s mandate on individuals to buy insurance without creating alternative incentives for people to stay in their plans.

If the Senate passes a bill, it will either have to be approved by the House, the two chambers would have to reconcile their differences in a conference committee, or the House could pass a new version and bounce it back to the Senate.

The House is also controlled by Republicans but faced a similar balancing act between moderates and conservatives to pass its version.

A Republican leadership aide in the House said if the Senate manages to pass a healthcare bill this week, no decision has been made on when the House might schedule a vote on it or whether House Republicans might seek any changes to the Senate measure.

(Writing by Richard Cowan and Frances Kerry; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

Senate Republicans unveil Obamacare replacement bill, but fate uncertain

U.S. Capitol is seen after the House approved a bill to repeal major parts of Obamacare and replace it with a Republican healthcare plan in Washington, U.S., May 4, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

By Richard Cowan and Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Senate Republicans on Thursday unveiled legislation that would replace Obamacare with a plan that scales back aid to the poor and kills a tax on the wealthy, but the bill’s fate was quickly thrown into question as several senators voiced skepticism.

Four conservative lawmakers said they could not support it in its current form, leaving Republicans short of the votes they need for passage. Democrats are united in opposition.

The 142-page proposal, worked out in secret by a group led Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, aims to deliver on a central campaign promise of President Donald Trump by rolling back former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law, which has provided coverage to millions of Americans since it was passed in 2010.

Republicans view the law, formally known as the Affordable Care Act, as a costly government intrusion into the private marketplace.

Trump welcomed the bill but indicated that changes may be in store.

“I am very supportive of the Senate #Healthcarebill. Look forward to making it really special!” he wrote on Twitter.

Trump urged the House of Representatives to pass a similar bill in May, only to criticize it in private as “mean” once it passed. He said on Wednesday he wanted a health plan “with heart.”

Democrats immediately attacked the legislation as a callous giveaway to the rich that would leave millions without coverage.

“The president said the House bill was mean,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. “The Senate bill may be even meaner.”

Obama weighed in on Facebook. “If there’s a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family – this bill will do you harm,” he wrote.

The Senate’s most conservative members said the plan did not do enough to scale back the U.S. government’s role.

“This current bill does not repeal Obamacare. It does not keep our promises to the American people,” said Senator Rand Paul, who along with fellow Republican Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Ron Johnson said they could not support it in its current form.

Shares of hospital companies and health insurers rose on the bill’s release, with the overall S&P 500 healthcare sector closing up 1.1 percent at an all-time high.

“The initial proposal I think is more generous and more positive to the industry than expected,” said Jeff Jonas, a portfolio manager with Gabelli Funds.

SHARPER CUTS TO MEDICAID

Over months of often bitter debate, Republicans have struggled to craft legislation that lowers costs and reduces government involvement, while minimizing the inevitable disruptions that would come with a revamp of a sector that accounts for one-sixth of the world’s largest economy.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the House bill would kick 23 million Americans off their health plans, and the legislation is unpopular with the public. Fewer than one in 3 Americans supports it, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling.

The Senate measure maintains much of the structure of the House bill, but differs in several key ways.

The Senate bill would phase out Obamacare’s expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor more gradually than the House version, waiting until after the next presidential election in 2020, but would enact deeper cuts starting in 2025. It would also allow states to add work requirements for some of the 70 million Americans who depend on the program.

The legislation also provides more generous tax subsidies than the House bill to help low-income people buy private insurance.

Those subsidies would be based on income, rather than the age-based subsidies contained in the House bill – a “major improvement,” according to Republican Senator Susan Collins, a key moderate who has expressed concern over the bill’s impact on the poor.

The Senate legislation provides less money, however, for the opioid epidemic, allocating $2 billion in 2018, compared with $45 billion over 10 years in the House version.

Both versions would repeal the 3.8 percent net investment income tax on high earners, a key target for Republicans.

They also would repeal a penalty imposed on large employers that do not provide insurance to their workers, and remove the fine that Obamacare imposes on those who choose to go uninsured.

Policy experts said that would keep more young, healthy people out of the market and likely create a sicker patient pool.

The Senate bill would provide money to stabilize the individual insurance market, allotting $15 billion a year in 2018 and 2019 and $10 billion a year in 2020 and 2021.

It proposes defunding Planned Parenthood for a year, but abortion-related restrictions are less stringent than the House version because of uncertainty over whether they would comply with Senate rules. They could be included in another Senate bill.

McConnell said Democrats chose not to help frame the bill, which Republicans say would fix a collapsing health marketplace.

“Republicans believe we have a responsibility to act, and we are,” he said.

Democrats say they offered to help fix Obamacare but were rebuffed.

The bill’s real-world impact is not yet known, but the CBO is expected to provide an estimate early next week.

As lawmakers spoke about the legislation on the Senate floor, a protest erupted outside McConnell’s personal office, with many people in wheelchairs blocking a hallway, holding signs and chanting: “No cuts to Medicaid.” U.S. Capitol Police said 43 protesters were arrested and charged with obstruction.

Aside from the quartet of conservatives, none of the other 48 Republican senators appeared to reject the bill out of hand. But several said they would check with home-state constituents before taking a position.

“I expect there’s going to be a number of changes between now and the final vote,” said Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming.

(Additional reporting by Yasmeen Abutaleb, Caroline Humer and Lewis Krauskopf; Writing by Andy Sullivan and Steve Holland; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Peter Cooney)

Obamacare replacement bill to take center stage in Senate

U.S. Capitol is seen after the House approved a bill to repeal major parts of Obamacare and replace it with a Republican healthcare plan in Washington, U.S., May 4, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

By Richard Cowan and Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A seven-year push by U.S. Republicans to dismantle Obamacare and kill the taxes it imposed on the wealthy will reach a critical phase on Thursday when Senate Republican leaders unveil a draft bill they aim to put to a vote, possibly as early as next week.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his lieutenants have worked in secret for weeks on the bill, which is expected to curb Obamacare’s expanded Medicaid help for the poor and reshape subsidies to low-income people for private insurance.

Those subsidies are expected to be linked to recipients’ income in the Senate bill, a “major improvement” from a measure approved last month by the U.S. House of Representatives that tied them solely to age, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said.

Some of the Senate bill’s provisions could be political land mines, with individual senators’ reactions to it crucial to determining whether or not the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, survives a Republican attack that has been under way since its passage in 2010.

The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the bill would seek to repeal most of the taxes that pay for Obamacare, give states more latitude to opt out of its regulations and eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood, a healthcare provider that offers abortion services.

Former Democratic President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement has been a target of Republican wrath for years. But even with control of both chambers of Congress and the White House since January, the party has struggled to make good on its bold campaign promises to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The law is credited with expanding health insurance to millions of Americans. Republicans say it costs too much and involves the federal government too much in healthcare. President Donald Trump made Obamacare repeal a centerpiece of his 2016 campaign and celebrated the House-passed bill.

Democrats accuse Republicans of sabotaging Obamacare, and say the Republican bill will make healthcare unaffordable for poorer Americans while cutting taxes for the wealthy.

TOUGH SELL

But McConnell may have a tough job convincing enough Republican senators that the Senate bill improves on the House version. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found nearly 60 percent of adults believed the House bill would make insurance costlier for low-income Americans and people with pre-existing conditions. Only 13 percent said it would improve healthcare quality.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the House bill would kick 23 million people off their healthcare plans. Healthcare is a top priority for voters and many Republicans fear a legislative misstep could hurt them.

Collins said she would weigh the CBO’s upcoming assessment of the Senate bill’s impact on costs and coverage.

Conservative Republican Senator Rand Paul, who wants a full repeal of Obamacare, said he feared that with the legislation being developed, “we’re actually going to be replacing Obamacare with Obamacare,” referring to the continuing role of government.

If legislation is to prevail in the Senate, McConnell can lose the support of only two of his 52 Republicans, assuming all 48 Democrats and independents oppose the bill, as expected.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan and Susan Cornwell; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Peter Cooney)

U.S. Senate votes near unanimously for Russia, Iran sanctions

National flags of Russia and the U.S. fly at Vnukovo International Airport in Moscow, Russia April 11, 2017. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov

By Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate voted nearly unanimously on Thursday for legislation to impose new sanctions on Russia and force President Donald Trump to get Congress’ approval before easing any existing sanctions on Russia.

In a move that could complicate U.S. President Donald Trump’s desire for warmer relations with Moscow, the Senate backed the measure by 98-2. Republican Senator Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, were the only two “no” votes.

The measure is intended to punish Russia for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, its annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region and support for Syria’s government in the six-year-long civil war.

If passed in the House of Representatives and signed into law by Trump, it would put into law sanctions previously established via former President Barack Obama’s executive orders, including some on Russian energy projects. The legislation also allows new sanctions on Russian mining, metals, shipping and railways and targets Russians guilty of conducting cyber attacks or supplying weapons to Syria’s government.

“The legislation sends a very, very strong signal to Russia, the nefarious activities they’ve been involved in,” Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said as lawmakers debated the measure.

If the measure became law, it could complicate relations with some countries in Europe. Germany and Austria said the new punitive measures could expose European companies involved in projects in Russia to fines.

The legislation sets up a review process that would require Trump to get Congress’ approval before taking any action to ease, suspend or lift any sanctions on Russia.

Trump was especially effusive about Russian president Vladimir Putin during the 2016 U.S. election campaign, though his openness to closer ties to Moscow has tempered somewhat, with his administration on the defensive over investigations into Russian meddling in the election.

Putin dismissed the proposed sanctions, saying they reflected an internal political struggle in the United States, and that Washington’s policy of imposing sanctions on Moscow had always been to try to contain Russia.

The bill also includes new sanctions on Iran over its ballistic missile program and other activities not related to the international nuclear agreement reached with the United States and other world powers.

UNCERTAIN PATH IN HOUSE

To become law, the legislation must pass the House of Representatives and be signed by Trump. House aides said they expected the chamber would begin to debate the measure in coming weeks.

However, they could not predict if it would come up for a final vote before lawmakers leave Washington at the end of July for their summer recess.

Senior aides told Reuters they expected some sanctions package would eventually pass, but they expected the measure would be changed in the House. The Trump administration has pushed back against the bill, and his fellow Republicans hold a commanding 238- to 193-seat majority in the chamber.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson questioned the legislation on Wednesday, urging Congress to ensure that any sanctions package “allows the president to have the flexibility to adjust sanctions to meet the needs of what is always an evolving diplomatic situation.”

Previously, U.S. energy sanctions had only targeted Russia’s future high-tech energy projects, such as drilling for oil in the Arctic, fracking and offshore drilling. They blocked U.S. companies such as Exxon Mobil, where Tillerson was chairman, from investing in such projects.

The new bill would slap sanctions on companies in other countries looking to invest in those projects in the absence of U.S. companies, a practice known as backfilling.

Also included for the first time are discretionary measures the Trump administration could impose on investments by companies in Western countries on Russia energy export pipelines to Europe.

The Senate also voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to add provisions to the bill allowing the U.S. space agency NASA to continue using Russian-made rocket engines and the 100 senators voted unanimously for an amendment reaffirming the U.S. commitment to the NATO alliance.

(Additional reporting by Tim Gardner; Editing by Yara Bayoumy and Tom Brown)

Despite Tillerson reassurance, Palestinians not stopping ‘martyr’ payments

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (L) meets with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Washington, U.S., May 3, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

By Ali Sawafta

RAMALLAH (Reuters) – Palestinian officials say there are no plans to stop payments to families of Palestinians killed or wounded carrying out attacks against Israelis, contradicting comments by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Tillerson told a Senate hearing on Tuesday he had received reassurances from President Mahmoud Abbas that the Palestinian Authority would end the practice of paying a monthly stipend to the families of suicide bombers and other attackers, commonly referred to by Palestinians as martyrs.

The issue of compensation has become a sticking point in efforts to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, with Israeli officials citing it as one reason they do not regard Abbas as a “partner for peace”.

“They have changed their policy,” Tillerson said, referring to the Palestinians. “At least I have been informed they’ve changed that policy and their intent is to cease payments.”

But Palestinian officials said they were not aware of any change and that it was unlikely a policy that has been a cornerstone of social support for decades would be altered.

“There have been talks about making the payments in a different way, but not ending them,” said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on discussions held with the Americans.

“They could perhaps be labeled differently,” he said, suggesting the description “martyr” could be dropped, but he added: “They are not going to be stopped.”

The Palestinian Authority makes a variety of social security payments, mostly to families, for those convicted and imprisoned by Israel for fighting against the occupation and those killed in violence, whether they were carrying out suicide attacks, shot while throwing stones or in other circumstances.

Amounts vary depending on whether the person killed was married or had children. Those wounded also receive aid.

In total, some 35,000 families receive support from a dedicated fund established in the 1960s, including those living outside the Palestinian territories. Some estimates suggest the fund distributes as much as $100 million a year.

At the same time, there are 6,500 Palestinians in Israeli jails, including 500 detained without charge, in some cases for years. All of them, including around 300 children and 50 women, receive monthly support from the Palestinian Authority.

For Abbas, ending such payments would be politically fraught. Surveys show he is highly unpopular and that would only likely worsen if support were stopped. It would probably strengthen his rival in the Islamist group Hamas.

However, Abbas has taken some steps to stop payments in recent weeks, following meetings he held with President Donald Trump in Washington at the start of May and later the same month when the president visited the region.

Some 277 Palestinians released from Israeli jails under a prisoner-swap agreement and transported to the Gaza Strip, where Hamas is in charge, had their monthly stipends stopped, they told Reuters this month.

Yet that decision seemed more about cutting funds that may help Hamas in Gaza rather than responding to U.S. or Israeli demands to end payments to those who have carried out attacks.

Israeli officials said they had seen no evidence that the Palestinian Authority was stopping support.

“Israel is unaware of any change in the policy of the Palestinians, who continue to make payments to the families of terrorists,” an official said, describing the payments a form of incitement to carry out violence.

(Additional reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza and Luke Baker and Jeffrey Heller in Jerusalem; Writing by Luke Baker; Editing by Tom Heneghan)

Comey says Trump fired him to undermine FBI Russia investigation

Former FBI Director James Comey arrives to testify before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 8, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

By Patricia Zengerle and Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Former FBI director James Comey on Thursday accused President Donald Trump on Thursday of firing him to try to undermine the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between his 2016 presidential campaign team and Russia.

Trump dismissed Comey on May 9 and the administration gave differing reasons for the action. Trump later contradicted his own staff and acknowledged on May 11 that he fired Comey because of the Russia probe.

Asked at a U.S. congressional hearing why he was fired, Comey said he did not know for sure. But he added: “Again, I take the president’s words. I know I was fired because of something about the way I was conducting the Russia investigation was in some way putting pressure on him, in some way irritating him, and he decided to fire me because of that.”

Comey earlier told the Senate Intelligence Committee in the most eagerly anticipated U.S. congressional hearing in years that he believed Trump had directed him to drop an FBI probe into the Republican president’s former national security adviser as part of the Russia investigation.

But Comey would not say whether he thought the president sought to obstruct justice.

“I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct. I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning,” Comey told the committee.

Trump critics say that any efforts by the president to hinder an FBI probe could amount to obstruction of justice. Such an offense potentially could lead to Trump being impeached by Congress, although the Republicans who control the Senate and House of Representatives have shown little appetite to make such a move against him.

Dressed in a dark suit and giving short, deliberative answers, Comey painted a picture of an overbearing president who pressured him to stop the FBI looking into Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

In more than two hours of testimony, Comey did not make any mayor new revelations about alleged links between Trump or his associates and Russia, an issue that has dogged Trump’s first months in office and distracted from his policy goals such as overhauling the U.S. healthcare system and making tax cuts.

Trump, in a speech across town, told supporters their movement was “under siege” and vowed to fight on.

“We’re under siege … but we will come out bigger and better and stronger than ever,” he said. “We will not back down from doing what is right.”

“We know how to fight and we will never give up,” the president added.

U.S. stocks were higher in early afternoon trading on Thursday after investors concluded Comey’s testimony would not in itself bring down Trump’s presidency.

(Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe in New York, Doina Chiacu, Eric Walsh, Roberta Rampton and Susan Heavey in Washington; Writing by Alistair Bell; Editing by Will Dunham)

Trump to ask former Justice Dept official Wray to lead FBI

FILE PHOTO: Assistant U.S. Attorney General Christopher Wray pauses during a press conference at the Justice Department in Washington, U.S. November 4, 2003. REUTERS/Molly Riley/File Photo

By Julia Edwards Ainsley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he plans to nominate Christopher Wray, a former U.S. assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush now in private practice, to lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

“I will be nominating Christopher A. Wray, a man of impeccable credentials, to be the new Director of the FBI. Details to follow,” Trump said in a statement on Twitter.

The U.S. Senate must approve Trump’s choice to replace former FBI Director James Comey, whom the president fired last month amid the agency’s ongoing probe into alleged Russian meddling into the U.S. election.

Trump’s announcement comes the day before Comey is scheduled to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Moscow’s alleged interference and any potential ties to Trump’s campaign or associates.

The president met last week with candidates for the FBI director post, including Wray, according to White House spokesman Sean Spicer.

Wray currently works for King & Spalding’s Washington and Atlanta offices where he handles various white-collar criminal and regulatory enforcement cases, according to the firm.

He served as assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s criminal division from 2003 to 2005, working on corporate fraud scandals and cases involving U.S. financial markets, according to his biography on the law firm’s website.

Many lawmakers have said Trump should pick a career law enforcement professional.

One former FBI official questioned whether Wray had the management experience to run an agency with more than 35,000 people, given the small size of the division he ran at the Justice Department.

(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey and Doina Chiacu; Editing by Alden Bentley and Jeffrey Benkoe)

U.S. lawmakers to press intel chiefs on Russia ahead of Comey hearing

FILE PHOTO - FBI Director James Comey waits to testify to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on "Russia's intelligence activities" on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. January 10, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo

By Patricia Zengerle and Dustin Volz

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Top U.S. intelligence officials will face questions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election and fallout from the firing of former FBI director James Comey when they appear at a Senate hearing on Wednesday.

The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee’s open hearing will feature officials closely tied to President Donald Trump’s abrupt firing last month of Comey, which sparked accusations that the Republican president had dismissed him to hinder the FBI probe and stifle questions about possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the second-ranking official at the Department of Justice who signed a letter recommending Comey’s dismissal, will testify, a day ahead of Comey’s own hotly anticipated testimony in the investigation of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election.

Rosenstein’s public testimony will be the first since he appointed – in the face of rising pressure from Congress – former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel investigating possible links between Russia and the election.

Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who took over after Comey was fired, will also be at the hearing.

The probe has hung over Trump’s presidency since he took office in January and threatens to overwhelm his policy priorities.

The Kremlin denies U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Moscow tried to tilt the election campaign in Trump’s favor, including by hacking into the emails of senior Democrats. Trump has denied any collusion.

“I know that there are going to be members who want to hear from Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein about his involvement in the (Comey) firing,” Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, told Reuters.

National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats will also be present at the hearing originally set to discuss a foreign surveillance law.

“My hope will be that Admiral Rogers and Director Coats won’t try to hide behind executive privilege … about the press reports about the president asking them to downplay the Russia investigation,” Warner said.

The Washington Post reported on May 22 that Trump had asked the officials to help push back against the FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and Moscow, citing current and former officials.

The two refused to comply with the request, which they regarded as inappropriate, the Post report said.

The Washington Post separately reported on Tuesday that Coats told associates in March that Trump asked him if he could intervene with then FBI Director Comey to get the FBI to back off its focus on Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, in its Russia probe, according to officials.

The intelligence officials are also expected to defend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA — the stated topic of the hearing — which will expire on Dec. 31 unless Congress votes to reauthorize it.

Section 702 allows the NSA to collect digital communications of foreigners believed to be living overseas whose communications pass through U.S. telephone or Internet providers. Information about Americans is also sometimes incidentally gathered, such as when someone is communicating to a foreign target which privacy advocates have long argued evades Constitutional protections against warrantless searches.

U.S. surveillance practices have come under increased scrutiny amid unsubstantiated assertions by Trump and other Republicans that the White House under former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, improperly spied on Trump or his associates.

There is no evidence that political motives drove Obama administration officials to request the names of Trump associates in any intercepts. The requests underwent every required evaluation, and they produced nothing out of the ordinary, according to four current and former officials who have reviewed the materials.

(Additional reporting by John Walcott; Editing by Yara Bayoumy and Lisa Shumaker)

Protesters call for investigation following FBI director firing

Protesters gather to rally against U.S. President Donald Trump's firing of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey, outside the White House in Washington, U.S. May 10, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

By Chris Kenning and Ian Simpson

CHICAGO/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A day after President Donald Trump’s stunning dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, protesters gathered in Washington, Chicago and other cities to urge an independent investigation of alleged collusion between Russia and Trump’s presidential campaign.

Waving signs and chanting outside the White House and at Senate constituency offices in other states, demonstrators said Trump’s move had compromised the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe.

“I still don’t have any love for Comey,” said Cody Davis, 29, among a small group of protesters near Chicago’s 96-story Trump International Hotel and Tower. “I’m not here to defend him. You could easily argue he lost the election for Hillary.”

Comey has been criticized by Democrats for his handling of an investigation surrounding 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

“The reason I’m here today is not that he was fired but because it was so clearly because Trump was afraid of something,” Davis said.

White House officials have denied any political motivation behind the firing and Trump said Comey had not been doing a good job and had lost the confidence of everyone in Washington.

Critics at various protests compared the Comey dismissal to the “Saturday Night Massacre” of 1973, in which President Richard Nixon fired an independent special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal.

MoveOn.Org and a coalition of liberal groups hastily organized protests at senators’ offices in more than a dozen states including New York, Kentucky, Arizona, California and Florida.

“Donald Trump just fired the one man in America who was leading the most thorough and long-lasting investigation of Donald Trump,” Jo Comerford, campaign director for MoveOn.org, said in a statement.

The issue also was discussed at town hall meetings being held by members of Congress across the country.

For some Trump supporters the controversy was overblown.

Denny Herman of Wamego, Kansas, said Comey deserved to be fired and the Russia investigation would not turn up wrongdoing. He said there was no need for a special prosecutor.

“It’s just liberal crap,” he said while relaxing at a bar. “We got bigger fish to fry.”

But in downtown Chicago, several dozen people banged pots and pans, waved signs reading “You can’t fire the truth” and chanted “Investigate Now!”

Several hundred people also gathered outside the White House and called for a special prosecutor.

“I feel like what happened yesterday was truly shocking, and the Republicans won’t stand up and do what they should without somebody pressing them,” said demonstrator Kelli Rowedder, a 34-year-old teacher from Washington.

(Additional reporting by Karen Dillon in Wamego, Kan. and Kathy Lynn Gray in New Albany, Ohio; Editing by Bill Trott)

With ‘nuclear option,’ Senate ends Democratic blockade of Trump court pick

FILE PHOTO - U.S. Supreme Court nominee judge Neil Gorsuch testifies during a third day of his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 22, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Republicans on Thursday crushed a Democratic blockade of President Donald Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee in a fierce partisan brawl, approving a rule change dubbed the “nuclear option” to allow for conservative judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation by Friday.

With ideological control of the nation’s highest court at stake, the Republican-led Senate voted 52-48 along party lines to change its long-standing rules in order to prohibit a procedural tactic called a filibuster against Supreme Court nominees. That came after Republicans failed by a 55-45 tally to muster the 60-vote super-majority needed to end the Democratic filibuster that had sought to deny Gorsuch confirmation to the lifetime post.

The Senate’s action paved the way to confirm Gorsuch by simple majority, with a vote expected at roughly 7 p.m. (2399 GMT) on Friday. Republicans control the Senate 52-48. The rule change was called the “nuclear option” because it was considered an extreme break with Senate tradition.

Trump had encouraged Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to “go nuclear.” Confirmation of Gorsuch would represent Trump’s first major victory since taking office on Jan. 20, after setbacks on healthcare legislation and his blocked order to prevent people from several Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States.

“This will be the first and last partisan filibuster of the Supreme Court,” McConnell said on the Senate floor, accusing Democrats of trying to inflict political damage on Trump and to keep more conservatives from joining the high court.

“In 20 or 30 or 40 years, we will sadly point to today as a turning point in the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court, a day when we irrevocably moved further away from the principles our founders intended for these institutions: principles of bipartisanship, moderation and consensus,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor.

Schumer ridiculed McConnell’s contention that the Democratic action was unprecedented, noting that the Republican-led Senate last year refused to consider Democratic former President Barack Obama’s nomination of appellate judge Merrick Garland for the same high court seat that Trump selected Gorsuch to fill.

Senate confirmation of Gorsuch, 49, would restore the nine-seat court’s 5-4 conservative majority, enable Trump to leave an indelible mark on America’s highest judicial body and fulfill a top campaign promise by the Republican president. Gorsuch could be expected to serve for decades.

A conservative-majority court is more likely to support gun rights, an expansive view of religious liberty, abortion regulations and Republican-backed voting restrictions, while opposing curbs on political spending. The court also is likely to tackle transgender rights and union funding in coming years.

THREE DEMOCRATS

In the end, three Democratic senators up for re-election in 2018 in states won by Trump last year – Indiana’s Joe Donnelly, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp – broke with their party and voted with Republicans to bring about a confirmation vote, though they opposed the rule change.

The nine-seat Supreme Court has had a vacancy since conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016.

Republicans have called Gorsuch superbly qualified and one of the nation’s most distinguished appellate judges, and they blamed Democrats for politicizing the confirmation process.

Democrats accused Gorsuch of being so conservative as to be outside the judicial mainstream, favoring corporate interests over ordinary Americans in legal opinions, and displaying insufficient independence from Trump.

The 60-vote threshold that gives the minority party power to hold up the majority party has forced the Senate over the decades to try to achieve bipartisanship in legislation and presidential appointments.

What Republicans did to Obama’s nominee Garland was worse than a filibuster, Schumer said. Schumer said Republicans denied “the constitutional prerogative of a president with 11 months left in his term.”

“The nuclear option was used by Senator McConnell when he stopped Merrick Garland. What we face today is the fallout,” Democratic Senator Richard Durbin added on the Senate floor.

McConnell blamed the escalation of fights over judicial nominees on the Democrats and their opposition starting three decades ago to nominees made by Republican former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

McConnell called the Democratic effort against Gorsuch “another extreme escalation in the left’s never-ending drive to politicize the court and the confirmation process.” He accused Gorsuch’s opponents of “a singular aim: securing raw power no matter the cost to the country or the institution.”

Experts said eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments could make it more likely that presidents, with little incentive to choose centrist justices who could attract support from the other party, will pick ideologically extreme nominees in the future.

Ending the filibuster also would make it easier for future Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed when the president and Senate leadership belong to the same party.

The filibuster in one form or another dates back to the 19th century but assumed its current form in the 1970s.

While Democrats opposed the rule change and accused Republicans of a power grab, it was their party that first resorted to the nuclear option when they controlled the Senate in 2013. In the face of Republican filibusters of Obama appointments, they barred filibusters for executive branch nominees and federal judges aside from Supreme Court justices but still allowed it for Supreme Court nominees and legislation.

The Republican-backed rule change maintains the ability to filibuster legislation.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan, Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)