ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Mike Lee

Immigration

Anti-Immigration Senators Would Prohibit Re-Entrants Without Criminal Records

Hours before Rena Rivas was set to be sent back to Mexico, his 18-year-old son Carlos made a plea at a townhall meeting with Congresswoman Rep. Frederica Wilson (D) to halt Rene Rivas’ 4 A.M. deportation. After making a personal call to the ICE agent in charge of Rivas’ case, Rep. Wilson was successful in stopping the deportation, but Rivas remains incarcerated in ICE legal limbo.

Because illegal re-entry is a felony, Rivas can be held in prison for up to two years even though he does not have prior convictions. Rivas had once before voluntarily left after being captured by ICE officials in a raid targeted at his coworker who has a criminal record.

Under the Senate immigration bill, Rena Rivas would qualify for registered provisional immigration (RPI) status, even though he violated federal law for reentering back into the U.S. Both Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) have created amendments that will prohibit deportees from being considered for RPI status.

A study released in March shows that one of the top immigration offenses was “reentry of deported alien.” While in the past, illegal re-entry had been used to describe violent criminals, the uptick in deportations shows immigrants with lesser offenses being given such labels. If passed under the Title II provision at the Senate markup hearing, this would impact numerous deported immigrants, some of whom had been deported for misdemeanors like marijuana possession. The Senate bill would not automatically grant deportees the right to return, but it would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to have discretion in granting waivers.

Health

Senate Republicans Invoke Kermit Gosnell To Push For Limiting Abortion Access Nationwide

A group of Senate Republicans are adding their voices to the growing number of abortion opponents attempting to leverage Kermit Gosnell’s crimes to attack women’s reproductive freedom. Led by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), the lawmakers have seized upon the Philadelphia abortion doctor’s high-profile murder case as an excuse to introduce a Senate resolution calling for even more restrictions on women’s reproductive care — with the ultimate goal of shutting down safe abortion clinics.

The resolution, whose additional co-sponsors include Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), calls for Congress to launch an investigation into the “dangerous” health clinics that perform abortion care. “No woman should ever be abandoned, by policy or practice, to the depredations of an unlicensed, unregulated, or uninspected clinic operating outside of the law with no regard for the mothers or children ostensibly under its care,” the resolution states.

Ironically, the policies that have “abandoned” those women — leading economically-disadvantaged Americans to seek out unregulated clinics like Gosnell’s — are actually the same exact types of policies that Lee’s resolution is calling for. Pushing to tighten restrictions on all abortion providers ends up forcing safe, legal clinics to close their doors. And that ultimately limits women’s access to the reproductive care they need, leading some desperate women to resort to unsafe abortion services when they’re left with no other options.

But that doesn’t matter to the abortion opponents who are eager to twist the facts in Gosnell’s case to advance their anti-choice agenda. As RH Reality Check points out, even though a Senate resolution won’t necessarily create any new policy right away, it may create a situation where lawmakers are pressured to sign on in support. And an increasing number of politicians aligning themselves with unnecessary abortion clinic restrictions will simply help perpetrate the anti-choice myth that over-regulating legal abortion providers is about keeping women safe — when, in reality, it’s about limiting access to safe reproductive care.

Lee has already attempted to restrict late-term abortion access for women in the District of Columbia by offering a budget amendment that included a 20-week abortion ban, a popular tactic among the anti-choice Republicans who do not actually represent those women in Congress.

LGBT

WATCH: Top Five Reasons Republicans Think It Should Be Legal To Fire Someone For Being Gay

LGBT Americans are regularly fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. And, despite what most people believe, there is no federal law to stop it.

That could change if a bill introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) on Thursday becomes law. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would protect LGBT Americans from discrimination in the workplace, just like women and racial minorities. This is particularly vital for transgender Americans, 90 percent of whom have experienced workplace discrimination.

While most Americans support the measure — which has been introduced in every Congress since 1994 — opponents have come up with creative excuses to distract from their homophobia. Here are the top five reasons Republicans offered ThinkProgress to explain why they think it should be legal to fire people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity:

1. Being LGBT is a choice. Rep. James Lankford (R-OK), the fifth-ranking House Republican, explained that he opposes workplace discrimination protections for LGBT people because being gay is “a choice issue.”

2. LGBT people aren’t fired for their orientation in the US. Former Rep. Allen West (R-FL) dismissed the idea of a law making it illegal to fire someone for being gay because, as he explained, it’s not “a big issue” and “that don’t happen out here in the United States of America.”

3. LGBT people “already” have legal protections. Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX) argued that, contrary to reality, a law making it illegal to discriminate against gay employees is “already on the books.” Marchant, incidentally, voted against that very bill when ENDA came up for a vote in 2007.

4. It could allow LGBT people to sue for discrimination. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) refused to support legislation that would make it illegal to fire someone for being gay because it would give LGBT workers “legal rights” that could “spawn a lot of litigation” and “would make it more difficult for employers to feel comfortable.”

5. Anti-LGBT discrimination is not a federal issue. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) argued that racial minorities deserved federal discrimination protections, but not LGBT workers. “Should [it] be a federal crime, specific to federal law? No,” said Lee.

Politics

Senator Compares Background Checks To Government Spying On What ‘Americans Eat For Breakfast’

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) compared universal background checks to the government spying on American eating and reading habits during an appearance on Fox News on Friday.

The conservative Tea Party favorite is part of a growing number of Republicans who have pledged to filibuster any gun safety package that includes the provision. The group claims that requiring private dealers to maintain records of the checks they conduct would lead to the creation of a government database or registry of all gun owners.

“[T]he concern with those is that background checks in and of themselves aren’t going to work unless they are accompanied by some sort of registration system,” Lee said. The American people “are not really comfortable with the idea of the government knowing exactly what firearm they purchase any more than they would be comfortable with the government knowing when or how often they go to church or what they eat for breakfast or what books they are reading from the library,” he claimed.

But this description is a gross misrepresentation of the legislation. Background check proposals being floated in Congress would require private sellers and buyers “to meet in person with a licensed dealer, where the dealer would check the buyer against the federal database for a fee.” The dealer would retain “a record of the sale” but would not send the information to the government, since current law prohibits the the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from establishing a national registry.

The dealer record-keeping provision ensures that checks are in fact being conducted and would allow the entire chain of custody to be reconstructed in the event the gun is later recovered in a crime. Currently, 60 percent of gun buyers who shop at licensed gun dealers undergo background checks and the gun stores are “required to keep a basic record of the transaction.”

Politics

As Obama Calls On Nation To Remember Newtown, Rubio Pledges To Block Gun Reform

Minutes before President Obama delivered an emotional speech asking lawmakers to pass sensible gun safety measures in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, word came from Capitol Hill that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) had signed onto a letter pledging to block votes on any of Obama’s proposals for gun legislation.

Obama delivered his speech surrounded by a group of victims of gun violence, including three parents of Newtown victims. All had come to Washington to demand that Congress take action to stop gun violence. Obama’s speech called on average citizens to ask for the same:

The notion that two months or three months after something as horrific as what happened in Newtown happens and we’ve moved on to other things, that’s not who we are. That’s not who we are.

And I want to make sure every American is listening today. Less than 100 days ago that happened, and the entire country was shocked. And the entire country pledged we would do something about it and that this time would be different. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten. I haven’t forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.

If there’s one thing I’ve said consistently since I first ran for this office: Nothing is more powerful than millions of voices calling for change. And that’s why it’s so important that all these moms and dads are here today. But that’s also why it’s important that we’ve got grassroots groups out there that got started and are out there mobilizing and organizing and keeping up the fight.

Sen. Mike Lee’s (R-UT) office was the first to announce that Rubio had signed onto the filibuster pledge, a joint effort by the offices of Lee and Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX). In an earlier statement, Lee claimed that Obama was using “the tragedy at Newtown as a backdrop for pushing legislation that would have done nothing to prevent that horrible crime.”

There’s no question that some parts of Obama’s gun violence prevention proposals would elicit strong opinions in the Senate, but by promising to filibuster them, Rubio, Lee, Cruz, and Paul are actually blocking the “robust and open debate” that they claim to be seeking. A majority of Americans support background checks and bans on high capacity ammunition, two of the proposals in Obama’s package, but thanks to the filibuster they might never see a debate on the floor.

In his speech on Thursday, Obama pushed for proposals including universal background checks, stricter penalties for people who buy guns with the intention of selling them to criminals (straw purchasers), an assault weapons ban, and a limit on high-capacity magazine clips.

Health

Marco Rubio: I’ll Vote To Shut Down The Government Unless Obamacare Is Completely Defunded

During an interview on conservative host Hugh Hewitt’s talk radio program Thursday night, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) joined fellow Tea Party favorites Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) in demanding that a continuing resolution to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year include provisions to defund Obamacare in its entirety.

Over the course of the program, Rubio parroted the usual litany of wild — and widely debunked — conservative hysteria about the dire consequences that Obamcare will have on American businesses and the U.S. health care industry, asserting that he would only vote to avert a government shutdown if Obamcare implementation is halted completely:

HEWITT: Senator Rubio, the continuing resolution is headed your way. How is this stacking up as Act III of the spending drama?

RUBIO: Well first of all, I don’t think anyone is in favor of shutting down the government, but I think that’s where we’re headed ultimately here, unfortunately, if we don’t fix our debt problem… But here’s what I’ve said about this continuing resolution. Senator Cruz from Texas is offering this amendment to defund Obamacare. If that gets onto the bill, in essence, if they get a continuing resolution and we can get a vote on that and pass that onto the bill, I’ll vote for a continuing resolution, even if it’s temporary, because it does something permanent, and that’s defund this health care bill, this Obamacare bill, that is going to be an absolute disaster for the American economy. You’re already starting to feel the outer edges of that… I already am running into businesses that are planning next year on not hiring people or laying some people off so they don’t have to meet these mandates. Others are going to push their employees off of their private plans that they offer and onto these exchanges, driving up the cost for the public. So this is going to be an implementation disaster. It’s going to hurt our economy severely. And we’re not spending enough time talking about that.

Later on, Hewitt asked if Rubio would settle for partially defunding Obamacare — specifically, by repealing a provision levying a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices — in exchange for funding the government. Rubio replied, “I don’t know if that alone would be enough” to secure his vote for the continuing resolution, but that he “certainly would support that amendment.”

Defunding the health reform law would devastate tens of millions of Americans who would no longer receive federal subsidies for purchasing health insurance or have expanded access to public insurance programs such as Medicaid. It would also fly in the face of public opinion, since the majority of Americans believe that implementing Obamacare should be a “top priority” in their state. And contrary to some Republicans’ claims, a government shutdown would be a decidedly bad development for essential government services and the American economy at large.

Health

Five Republicans Oppose Bipartisan Measure To Combat Human Trafficking

As the Senate moves to a final vote on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), today 93 Senators endorsed an amendment to combat human trafficking. While opposing human trafficking is a fairly non-controversial subject, five far-right Republicans broke with the majority of their own caucus and opposed the bipartisan amendment.

The amendment, authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT), strengthens VAWA by reauthorizing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The measure helps law enforcement investigative human trafficking and supports international efforts to stop the practice. Leahy noted that on the anniversary of President Lincoln’s birth, “we continue to fight human trafficking, which can amount to modern day slavery,” making the amendment a fitting tribute. “The United States remains a beacon of hope for so many who face human rights abuses. We know that young women and girls – often just 11, 12, or 13 years old – are being bought and sold. We know that workers are being held and forced into labor against their will. People in this country and millions around the world are counting on us.”

The amendment was opposed by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK), James Inhofe (R-OK), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

Lee also voted against even allowing the Senate to consider the Violence Against Women Act, based on his bizarre belief that the entire bill is unconstitutional.

Prior to his time in the Senate, Johnson famously opposed the bipartisan Wisconsin Child Victims Act, a bill to extend the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse crimes. His objection was that it would be bad for business if employers who help cover up the crime could be “severely damaged, possibly destroyed, in a legitimate desire for justice.”

Leahy said of the the Trafficking Victims Protection Act:

This measure strengthens criminal anti-trafficking statutes to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to effectively combat all forms of trafficking. It ensures better coordination among federal agencies, between law enforcement and victim service providers, and with foreign countries to work on every facet of this complicated problem. It includes measures to encourage victims to come forward and report this terrible crime, which leads to more prosecutions and help for more victims. We have included accountability measures to ensure that Federal funds are used for their intended purposes, and we have streamlined programs to focus scarce resources on the approaches that have been the most successful. A Senator asserted yesterday that trafficking programs have been wasteful and duplicative. In fact, the programs supported by this amendment have been carefully tracked and shown to be effective. Nonetheless, the amendment reduces authorization levels by almost a third from the levels in the last reauthorization because we are determined to ensure efficiency and respond to concerns. We have made similar efforts to streamline VAWA.

The offices of the five Senators were not immediately available to respond to questions about their rationales for opposing the amendment.

Justice

Meet The Four Republican Senators Who Think The Violence Against Women Act Is Unconstitutional

Since then-Delaware Senator Joe Biden first authored the law in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has earned bipartisan praise for providing vital protections against domestic violence and assistance to victims. But of the eight Senators — all Republicans — who voted Monday against even considering VAWA renewal, at least four apparently did so because they believe the bill is unconstitutional.

Several of these senators have expressed similarly radical views about the constitutional role of the federal government in other contexts. Sen. Mike Lee’s (R-UT) claimed that national child labor laws, Social Security and Medicare violate the Tenth Amendment, for example; and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) once led a Tenth Amendment project at a conservative think tank and co-authored a paper proposing an unconstitutional process to nullify the Affordable Care Act. The four senators who claim that the Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional are:

  • 1. Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID): In a statement, Risch explained: “It is at the state and local level where I believe enforcement and prosecution must remain. The federal government does not need to add another layer of bureaucracy to acts of violence that are being handled at the state and local level. In addition to my 10th Amendment concerns, this legislation raises additional constitutional questions regarding double jeopardy and due process. I opposed this legislation, however well intended it was, because it is another effort of the federal government extending its reach into the affairs of state and local jurisdictions.”
  • 2. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): In a 2012 letter explaining his opposition to last year’s VAWA re-authorization attempt, Paul wrote: “Under our Constitution, states are given the responsibility for prosecution of those violent crimes. They don’t need Washington telling them how to provide services and prosecute criminals in these cases. Under the Constitution, states are responsible for enacting and enforcing criminal law. As written, S. 1925 muddles the lines between federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement.”
  • 3. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT): In 2012, Lee claimed VAWA “oversteps the Constitution’s rightful limits on federal power. Violent crimes are regulated and enforced almost exclusively by state governments. In fact, domestic violence is one of the few activities that the Supreme Court of the United States has specifically said Congress may not regulate under the Commerce Clause. As a matter of constitutional policy, Congress should not seek to impose rules and standards as conditions for federal funding in areas where the federal government lacks constitutional authority to regulate directly.”
  • 4. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): A Cruz spokeswoman told ThinkProgress: “For many years, Senator Cruz has worked in law enforcement, helping lead the fight to ensure that violent criminals—and especially sexual predators who target women and children—should face the very strictest punishment. However, stopping and punishing violent criminals is primarily a state responsibility, and the federal government does not need to be dictating state criminal law.” While the statement does not explicitly call VAWA unconstitutional, his previous comments leave little doubt that that is what he means.

These senators’ apparent belief that the federal government cannot constitutionally play a role in preventing violence against women is not even shared by most Republican members of Congress. 216 House Republicans agreed just last year that the Constitution does not prohibit a version of the Violence Against Women Act. The Supreme Court did strike down one piece of VAWA in 2000, but it left most of the law intact.

While the other four Senators who voted against the “motion to proceed” did not respond to a request for an explanation of their votes, Sen. Tim Scott (R) voted for the watered-down House version of VAWA last year and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) claims he supports a scaled-back version of the legislation.

Justice

Support For Tea Party Budget Amendment Craters In The Senate

At the opening of the last Congress, House and Senate Republicans lined up behind a Tea Party “balanced budget amendment” that would have made it functionally impossible to raise taxes while simultaneously forcing spending cuts so severe that they would “throw about 15 million more people out of work, double the unemployment rate from 9 percent to approximately 18 percent, and cause the economy to shrink by about 17 percent instead of growing by an expected 2 percent.” Every single Republican in the senate co-sponsored this depression-inducing constitutional amendment.

Two years and one election later, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) reintroduced a version of the Tea Party amendment in the new Congress — but Lee is now a lone voice crying in the wilderness. According to Thomas, the Library of Congress’ searchable database of federal legislation, Lee’s proposed amendment has zero co-sponsors.

It’s worth noting that Lee has, at times, called national child labor laws, FEMA, food stamps, the FDA, Medicaid, income assistance for the poor, and even Medicare and Social Security unconstitutional. Meaning that every senator who does not believe that preventing children from working in coal mines is a violation of our founding document appears to have abandoned the quest to also turn that document into a blueprint for the Great Depression.

Justice

Mike Lee Backs Down From Voting Against Every Single Judicial Nominee

For almost a year now, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has been one of the most intransigent obstructionists on judicial nominations. Until recently, he has categorically voted down every single nominee to the federal courts, a tactic he said was in retaliation for President Obama’s recess appointments of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and two others to the National Labor Relations Board.

In his crusade, Lee has voted against even those nominees he supported, and since at least April, without a single ally left. Now, just as President Obama is ramping up his push to fill federal court vacancies during his second term, Lee says he’s backing down:

Lee says the Republicans have adequately responded by invoking a loosely defined Senate tradition of backing off from filling circuit court seats in the waning months of a president’s term, dubbed the “Thurmond Rule.” That rule was invoked in July.

“That issue is closed,” spokesman Brian Phillips said. However, should the president again make recess appointments, Lee could again institute his policy, Phillips said.

Of course, President Obama used his recess appointment power because this same sort of obstruction left vacant key positions in administrative agencies. Republicans who opposed Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example, admitted he was a qualified nominee, but held his nomination hostage in a campaign to eviscerate the CFPB’s structure.

And now, in a perverse turn of events, Mike Lee is joining some of his colleagues in threatening a “strong and proportional response” — ostensibly even more obstruction – if the Senate adopts a filibuster reform proposal intended to curb obstruction.

If Lee does stand by his change of heart at least with regard to judicial nominees, he will have removed one of many obstacles to ending the judicial vacancy crisis. But to reverse the trend during Obama’s first term of having confirmed less judicial nominees than any president since Kennedy, obstructionists will have to go one step further and enable Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to actually schedule yes-or-no votes in the first place.

Older

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

Sign Up