ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Harry Reid”

Justice

Congressional Republican Wants To Impeach Harry Reid

By Scott Keyes on Feb 26, 2013 at 9:00 am

Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA)

A Republican congressman wants to impeach Harry Reid, and he might’ve gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for those meddling laws preventing Congress from impeaching senators.

Speaking last week to the Mifflin County Tea Party, Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA) seethed with anger about budget negotiations between the House and the Senate. His preferred solution to the impasse: impeach the Democratic Senate Majority Leader:

MARINO: I’ve made a suggestion that we should at least start talking about impeachment. I had my office staff do it. But we cannot find anything that permits the House to bring impeachment proceedings against Harry Reid. There’s nothing in the legislation we can find at this point to force him to vote or come up with a budget or anything like that. His membership in the Senate can call for a vote of “no confidence,” but we can’t even get a Republican senator to do that.

Watch it:

The Constitution permits senators to be expelled by a 2/3s vote of the Senate, but this is likely the sole remedy against a member of Congress their fellow lawmakers wish to remove. In 1796, Sen. William Blount joined a conspiracy to assist Great Britain in seizing Spanish territory in Louisiana and Florida, and was eventually impeached for his role in this conspiracy. Although the Senate expelled him, a majority of Blount’s former colleagues voted that they lacked jurisdiction to hear his impeachment. This precedent is often cited as establishing that members of Congress are not subject to impeachment, only expulsion.

This isn’t the first time Marino has floated impeachment as the cudgel for his preferred policies. During his initial congressional campaign in 2010, Marino said he would be willing to use “impeachment if necessary” against President Obama in order to increase border security.

Security

BREAKING: Senate Republicans Make History, First To Filibuster Defense Secretary Nominee

By Hayes Brown on Feb 14, 2013 at 4:58 pm


Senate Republicans today chose to uphold a filibuster against Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel, despite many of them previously pledging that they would be willing to allow him to be confirmed.

Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and John Cornyn (R-TX) all voted against cloture, despite their pleas during the Bush administration that a president’s Cabinet nominees should receive an up-or-down vote.

Four Republicans, Sens. Thad Cochran (R-MS), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mike Johanns (R-NE), voted to break the filibuster. The final vote was 58-40, with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) voting present, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) not voting at all, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) voting “no” as a procedural move so that he can bring another vote to the floor at a later date.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had originally scheduled the cloture vote for tomorrow morning, but surprised many by pushing it up to this afternoon. Earlier today, Reid took to the Senate floor to lambaste his Republican colleagues for delaying an up-or-down vote on Hagel, the first filibuster of a Secretary of Defense nominee.

Prior to the roll call’s beginning, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) attempted to explain that the vote that was set to take place was the vote “to confirm Chuck Hagel,” rather than merely being a procedural vote. Inhofe also claimed that a 60-vote margin was common practice, rendering the actions of the Republicans not a filibuster. However, the motion was still filed by Reid as cloture — the ending of debate — rather than the actual confirmation of Hagel, as laid out be Levin before voting. This leaves the door open for Hagel’s nomination to remain on the Senate floor and renders the GOP’s actions a filibuster under the Senate’s rules.

While Senate Republicans are opposed to voting on Hagel today, they seem to believe that they’ll change their minds after the Senate returns from its President’s Day recess in 10 days. This morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that he expected to be willing to move Hagel forward at that time, “unless there’s some bombshell that he likes blood sucking vampires.” Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and John McCain (R-AZ) said roughly the same thing today, leaving their votes against Hagel today confusing.

The hope for such a bombshell emerging seems far less than likely. A speech given by Hagel in 2008 that conservatives have long-sought as evidence that Hagel falls far outside of the mainstream was released today, turning out to be a dud. Likewise right-wing implications that Hagel was secretly being backed by a group called “Friends of Hamas” also proved to be utterly false, fabricated on a far-right media outlet.

After today’s filibuster, the Senate will reconsider Hagel after their break. While today’s vote showed that the GOP was willing to obstruct and delay, they ultimately will be unable to do this forever. In the end, Hagel still possesses more than the majority vote needed for final passage.

Security

Senate Majority Leader Says ‘It’s Tragic’ GOP Is Filibustering Hagel

By Ben Armbruster on Feb 14, 2013 at 12:30 pm

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he has scheduled a cloture vote for Chuck Hagel’s nomination as Defense Secretary for Friday morning.

In an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, Reid lambasted Republicans for their “unprecedented” obstruction on Hagel (this is the first time in the history of the United States that a president’s nominee for Defense Secretary has been filibustered). “It’s shocking,” Reid said, “that my Republican colleagues would leave the country without a fully empowered Secretary of Defense during all the things that we have going on in the world including a war”:

REID: I have heard speeches from the other side a lot saying, “you know the president should have the right to choose whoever he wants.” He has the support of this body, a majority vote in this body in this democracy. We are a nation, Mr. President, at war. We are whether we like it or not the world’s indispensable leader. We’re it. For the sake of our national security it’s time to put aside this political theatre and that’s what it is.

People are worried about primary elections. We know how the Tea Party goes after Republicans when they aren’t conservative enough. Is that something they need to have on their resume? “I filibustered one of the president’s nominees.” Is that what they want? The filibuster of Senator Hagel’s confirmation is unprecedented. I repeat. Not a single nominee for Secretary of Defense ever in the history of our country has been filibustered. Never, ever!

“We need a Secretary of Defense,” Reid said later. “It’s tragic that they’ve decided to filibuster this qualified nominee. It is really unfortunate.” Watch the clip:

Senate Democratic aides are reportedly saying they may not have enough votes to break the filibuster while some are reporting that there are enough votes for cloture, but the actual vote on Hagel’s nomination won’t take place until after the recess.

However, NATO is hosting Defense Minister meetings next week in Brussels where the allies will discuss the ongoing war in Afghanistan. “We need our new defense secretary to be there,” a White House spokesperson said today, calling the GOP obstruction “unconscionable” and adding, “It does not send a favorable signal for the Republicans of the U.S. senate to delay a vote. …It’s difficult to explain to our allies why that’s happening.”

Video transcript:

Read more

Related Posts

Security

Senate Majority Leader Scolds GOP For Unprecedented Hagel Obstruction: ‘What A Shame’

By Ben Armbruster on Feb 13, 2013 at 5:53 pm

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) today filed a cloture motion on Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be the next Defense Secretary, saying he was forced to file the motion — which effectively means that 60 votes will be required for an up or down vote on Hagel — because Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) and other Republicans “aren’t willing to consider” the Nebraska Republican’s nomination.

“This is the first time in the history of our country that a presidential nominee for Secretary of Defense has been filibustered,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “What a shame.” Watch the clip:

The cloture vote is scheduled for Friday and It’s unlikely Senate Republicans will be able to derail Hagel’s confirmation. At this point, their obstruction and delay appears to be just that: obstruction and delay.

But it’s worth remembering who wants Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense — former top military and defense officials from both parties, 50 former U.S. ambassadors, veterans and military families, a bipartisan group of former national security advisers, and the country’s most prominent newspapers and journalists — and who doesn’t: James Inhofe, Ted Cruz, Bill Kristol, Rick Santorum, Elliott Abrams, and Jennifer Rubin. You do the math.

Justice

Not Bought And Paid For: 10 Senators Who Are Bucking The NRA On Guns

By Josh Israel on Feb 12, 2013 at 10:30 am

While top House and Senate recipients of National Rifle Association’s NRA Political Victory Fund PAC have mostly towed the line organization’s extreme opposition to any gun violence prevention measures, ten Senators who have received heavy financial backing from the NRA have bucked the group in light of the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Ten Senators have received more than $10,000 from the NRA’s political action committee over their Congressional careers, yet have at least expressed an openness to some new common-sense gun laws. They include:

1. SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ) — AT LEAST $33,200


McCain said last month that while he would not support bans on assault weapons or high capacity magazines, he was open to expanding background checks: “If there are improvements that need to be made, as I said, to keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals, I’m sure all Americans, including the NRA, would agree with them, I would think.”

2. SEN. PAT TOOMEY (R-PA) — AT LEAST $27,250


Toomey said last month: “Second Amendment rights are important to many Pennsylvanians and must be protected, but there may be areas of agreement with the White House that can be addressed to improve public safety.” Reports suggest he is also open to stricter background checks.

3. SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT) — AT LEAST $27,250


Baucus indicated in December that he was open to a discussion of an assault weapons ban. In January, his office said he is still undecided on expanding background checks.

4. SEN. DEAN HELLER (R-NV) — AT LEAST $21,350


Last week, Heller endorsed expanded background checks, saying: “I think it’s a reasonable step forward.”

5. SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV) — AT LEAST $19,900


Last week, Reid expressed support for expanding background checks and said
gun-magazine limits were “definitely something we have to take a look at.” He also promised to use his position as Senate Majority Leader to bring gun violence prevention measures to the Senate floor.

6. SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ) — AT LEAST $18,400


Last week, Flake reiterated his support for expanded background checks, saying: “All of us, Republicans and Democrats, have recognized that we need more effective and broader background checks than we have in the past.”

7. SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK) — AT LEAST $17,850


Coburn is part of a bipartisan group of four Senators working to tighten background checks. He noted that “the whole goal is to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals.”

8. SEN. TIM JOHNSON (D-SD) — AT LEAST $16,250


Johnson said last month at a press conference that “one size doesn’t fit all” states for gun laws, but agreed that clip size makes some difference in preventing mass shootings and that a package of approaches should be considered. He has indicated a willingness to expand background checks as well.

9. SEN. JOE DONNELLY (D-IN) — AT LEAST $13,900


Donnelly said last month: “In 2007, just weeks after 32 people at Virginia Tech were murdered by a single gunman, Democrats and Republicans came together to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is used to check the backgrounds of most prospective gun buyers. That system still does not work as well as it should and should be examined again in the coming weeks.”

10. SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV) — AT LEAST $11,450


Manchin said last month that expanded background checks are “common sense,” asking, “Why would a legitimate gun retail shop have to go through that, but then the unfair advantage for someone at a gun show doesn’t?” In the days after Sandy Hook, Manchin was among the first to call for new action on gun violence. Like Sen. Coburn, Manchin is part of the bipartisan quartet crafting a background check proposal.

While these Senators may not receive future contribution checks from the NRA PAC, they really have little to worry about politically as a result of standing up for common-sense measures. Even most NRA members differ with the hard-line national leadership and support background checks. Last year’s elections revealed the NRA to be the paper tiger that it is: an analysis of the NRA’s spending revealed that “NRA contributions to candidates have virtually no impact on the outcome of Congressional races.” Recent polling suggests voters are more likely to punish a candidate for having NRA backing than to reward allegiance to the gun lobby.

LGBT

Harry Reid Predicts Immigration Reform Will Pass, Says It Must Include Protections For Same-Sex Families

By Igor Volsky on Feb 3, 2013 at 10:56 am

Senate Majority Leader Harry (D-NV) expressed support for including gay and lesbian families in comprehensive immigration reform, during an appearance on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, insisting that they should have the same protections as everyone else.

The United States is home to at least 28,500 same-sex couples in which one partner is a citizen and the other is not, but federal law does not recognize these relationships and prohibits gay and lesbian couples and their children from seeking visas on the basis of same-sex unions. The Obama administration’s framework would allow families to apply for visas on the basis of their permanent unions, while the bipartisan senate principles do not. Reid characterized the GOP resistance to including the equality amendment as an excuse to avoid supporting comprehensive reform:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (HOST): One of the other big issues, the President said he wants gay and lesbians to be able to have a family preference. Senator McCain has said we shouldn’t come up with legislation for what he calls social issues.

REID: If we have gay folks in this country who have children, or they come from some other place they should be protected just like any other child.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s the position the Republicans are saying that’s too heavy to lift.

REID: If they’re looking for an excuse not to support this legislation, this is another one, but the American people are past excuses. They want this legislation passed.

Watch it:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), one of the 8 bipartisan senators, has characterized equality for gay and lesbian families in immigration reform as a “red herring” and compared it to supporting tax payer funding for abortion services.

Reid seemed to dismiss such rhetoric and predicted that immigration reform is “certainly going to pass the Senate.” “It would be a bad day for our country and a bad day for the Republican party if they continue to stand in the way of this,” Reid said.

Politics

Meet The NRA-Backed Senate Democrats Who Oppose Obama’s Gun Violence Prevention Plan

By Zack Beauchamp on Jan 17, 2013 at 1:15 pm

On Wednesday, President Obama unveiled a comprehensive plan to reform American gun laws and take action against the 32,000 firearm-inflicted deaths per year in the United States. His proposals ranged from stricter, universal background checks to more funding for police officers to expanding access to mental health care.

Yet a group of Senate Democrats, all of them highly rated by the National Rifle Association, are refusing to say if they support the President’s reform package. Below is a list of the Senators in question, how they’re rated by the NRA, and what they’ve said about gun law reform:

1. Max Baucus, Montana (NRA Rating: A+). Baucus appeared to oppose any federal action on gun law reform, saying in a statement that “Before passing new laws, we need a thoughtful debate that respects responsible, law-abiding gun owners in Montana instead of a one-size-fits all directives from Washington.”

2. Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota (NRA Rating: A). In a local television appearance before President Obama’s announcement, Heitkamp accused the White House of having ulterior motives besides preventing mass killing, claiming “There isn’t any amount of gun regulation or gun executive orders that will solve the problem of identifying people who could potentially do this and making sure they get the help and their families get the help so they don’ t do this. I’ve said it all along that this is wrong headed…I think it is an agenda driven by something other than school shootings.”

3. Tim Johnson, South Dakota (NRA Rating: A). Like Baucus, Johnson argued against federal solutions: “We in South Dakota have far fewer problems with guns than they do in New York or New Jersey and it makes common sense to not have one size fits all.”

4. Joe Donnelly, Indiana (NRA Rating: A). Donnelly simply said that “I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment,” pointed to his NRA endorsement, and rejected the assault weapons ban plan of Obama’s proposal.

5. Mark Begich, Alaska (NRA Rating: A). Begich cited his support for mental health legislation, but demurred on gun restrictions, saying “there is no quick fix when it comes to keeping our families and communities safe. We must make smart investments to increase our safety while ensuring Americans’ Second Amendment rights are protected.”

6. Joe Manchin, West Virginia (NRA Rating: A). Manchin blamed a “culture of mass violence” rather than the spread of deadly weapons, wishing the president had created a “national commission [to] build the consensus we need for real action backed not only by gun control advocates, mental health experts and entertainment industry executives but also by law-abiding gun owners who fully understand the history and heritage of firearms in America.”

7. Jon Tester, Montana (NRA Rating: A-). Tester refused to take a position, saying “As Congress considers ways to address gun violence, we must look at all aspects of this issue. Our priority must be keeping all Americans–especially our kids–safe. I will look closely at all proposals on the table, but we must use common sense and respect our Constitution.”

8. Harry Reid, Nevada (NRA Rating: B). Reid, like Tester, wouldn’t say one way or another: “I thank the President’s task force for its thoughtful recommendations. I am committed to ensuring that the Senate will consider legislation that addresses gun violence and other aspects of violence in our society early this year. The tragedy at Sandy Hook was just the latest sad reminder that we are not doing enough to protect our citizens – especially our children – from gun violence and a culture of violence, and all options should be on the table moving forward.”

Fortunately, however, several Democratic Senators with high ratings have realized the gun lobby’s power is vastly overstated. Mark Warner of Virginia, who has a flat A rating, said several of the Obama proposals had “bipartisan support” and that “President Obama has laid out a comprehensive, far-reaching proposal to address the issues of gun violence and public safety. The Sandy Hook shootings compel all of us to think anew about these issues, and I believe the status quo is not acceptable.” Bob Casey (PA) and Martin Heinrich (NM), who are rated B+, supported some of the strong gun regulations in the Obama package.

Update

An earlier version of this post attributed a statement from Rep. Don Young (R-AK) to Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK). The post has been updated to accurately reflect Sen. Begich’s remarks. We regret the error.

Health

Obama Clarifies That Doctors Can Openly Discuss Gun Ownership Under Health Reform Law

By Sy Mukherjee on Jan 16, 2013 at 5:10 pm

During his remarks on sweeping gun safety proposals today, President Obama sought to dispel any notions of gun lobby favoritism in Obamacare — addressing some concerns over a little-known Obamacare provision entitled the “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights” that was quietly inserted into the health care law at the request of pro-gun, NRA-backed Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV).

That measure seemingly gives gun owners special privileges by preventing wellness and better-living programs from requiring Americans to disclose information about their possible gun ownership, as well as prohibiting insurers from considering gun ownership when determining premium rates. As the President unveiled his gun safety proposals on Wednesday, he didn’t address those two points. But a fact sheet released to reporters does assert that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will clarify that Obamacare doesn’t prohibit medical professionals from openly discussing gun ownership with their patients:

Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.

Public health officials overwhelmingly consider gun injuries and fatalities to be a public health concern. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimate that gun violence costs $5.6 billion in annual medical bills, and up to $100 billion annually when also considering lost productivity from gun injuries and deaths.

Health

How The Pro-Gun Lobby Snuck Extra Protections For Gun Owners Into Obamacare

By Sy Mukherjee on Dec 20, 2012 at 1:55 pm

This month’s deadly rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School has sparked a national conversation about improving gun control laws and the woeful state of America’s mental health care system. Fortunately, Obamacare will address the latter by increasing access to mental health services through its Medicaid expansion and state-wide health exchanges — but Kaiser Health News reports that a little known NRA-backed provision in the health law may undermine the former.

Inserted into the Affordable Care Act at the request of pro-gun, NRA-backed Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), the Obamacare subsection titled “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights” makes it illegal for wellness and better-living programs to require “the disclosure or collection of any information relating to… the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or… the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.” The provision also prohibits insurers from using a patient’s gun possession status in order to determine premium rates.

Supporters might argue that gun ownership is a personal choice, and that patients should have a right to privacy from providers and insurers on such a matter. But critics say the provision stifles meaningful dialogue between providers and patients on an issue that undeniably has implications for public health and medical costs.

As University of Pennsylvania social policy professor Susan Sorenson puts it, “A lot of people buy guns every year, and it’s a health concern… To regulate what the provider can or can’t do really intrudes into the role of the health care provider, which is to ensure the health of the individual and the people who are living in that home.”

And Obamacare doesn’t extend this privacy to other costly lifestyle choices. Last month, the Obama administration issued a rule allowing insurers to consider patients’ smoking histories when setting their premium rates. Gun violence costs Americans $5.6 billion in annual medical bills, but the totals are actually closer to $100 billion per year — the same number that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that smoking costs Americans each year in medical costs — when accounting for lost productivity.

The fact that such a provision found its way into the health care law without so much as a mention from the media or national politicians underscores the far reach of the gun lobby’s influence. Sen. Reid, who quietly requested the addition, has a solid “B” rating from the NRA, and the influential lobbying group — which overwhelmingly supports Republicans — declined to weigh in on his 2010 re-election campaign.

Justice

Majority Leader Reid Reportedly On Board With Streamlining Confirmations Process

By Ian Millhiser on Dec 19, 2012 at 4:40 pm

In a report suggesting that Senate Democrats are likely to have the 51 votes necessary to reform the filibuster next month, Ryan Grim reports that Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) has embraced an important reform to prevent obstruction of judicial and other nominees. According to Grim, Reid, “wants to streamline the nomination process, and cut out some of the time it takes to move judges through by limiting debate once a filibuster has been defeated.”

This is a significant addition to the package of reforms Reid already endorsed, which include eliminating the minority’s ability to filibuster the same bill more than once and requiring a senator to speak on the floor in order to maintain a filibuster. Under current Senate rules, the minority can force up to 30 hours of floor time to be wasted even after a supermajority of the Senate votes to break a filibuster on a nominee. When multiplied across the many hundreds of nominees the Senate must confirm, these 30 hours of wasted time allow the minority to bring the Senate to a virtual standstill.

Of course, it remains to be seen just how deeply Reid is willing to cut these 30 hours — in an ideal world, he will embrace Sen. Jeff Merkley’s (D-OR) suggestion to eliminate all of them. Nevertheless, the fact that Reid appears to be on board with cutting short these 30 hours of waste is a significant positive development in the negotiations over filibuster reform.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up