ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Susan Collins

Security

Fox News Host Dismisses New GOP Attack On Susan Rice

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera criticized a claim made by Republicans that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is partly responsible for the attacks that killed four Americans at a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11 this year because of her experience with the terror bombings at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania 14 years ago.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) lobbed the criticism on Wednesday saying that the Benghazi attack “echoes the attacks on those embassies in 1998,” and that Rice “was head of the African region for our State Department. In both cases the ambassadors begged for additional security.”

But Rivera, who said he covered the attack in Kenya at the time, said that assessment is off the mark:

RIVERA: I think though to blame Susan Rice is kind of like blaming FEMA for 9/11. There is an undersecretary of state who is in charge of facilities and that is the group that deemed the terrorist threat there to be medium: it really wasn’t Susan Rice. It’s like scapegoating Susan is the affliction that’s sweeping Washington right now.

Watch Geraldo’s remarks here:

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) joined in the new attack shortly after Collins’ statement, telling MSNBC that Rice needed to answer “questions” about her role in protecting the embassies. But two officials from a board that Huffington Post says investigated the 1998 terrorist bombings said that Rice had nothing to do with embassy security at the time. One official said, “I don’t remember any inference or allegation that Susan Rice had been negligent.” Yesterday, Mother Jones tracked down the State Department Accountability Review Board’s reports of both bombings and came to a similar conclusion:

“The reports noted numerous security failures and oversights that preceded the bombings. But they don’t back up Collins’ characterization. Neither mentions Rice, who was a policy person who would not be in charge of embassy or security operations. The report on the Tanzania attack says nothing about the US ambassador there begging for additional security. It notes that “the security systems and security procedures” at the embassy “were in accord with, and in some ways exceeded, Department of State standards for overseas posts assessed as having a ‘low’ threat rating for political violence and terrorism.”

Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), have been trying to deligitimize Rice in anticipation of her Secretary of State nomination and the attempt to link the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings to Benghazi and Rice is just the latest baseless salvo.

Collins said she asked about the 1998 embassy bombings in her meeting with Rice this week but was disappointed that Rice said “she wasn’t expecting a question on that and that she would have to refresh her memory and go back and think about it.” Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable that Rice wasn’t prepared for the question, as the topic has nothing to do with her role in disseminating the intelligence community’s talking points on Benghazi.

Security

Why Susan Collins’ Opposition To Susan Rice Is Hypocritical

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said on Wednesday that she would have a hard time supporting U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice as the next Secretary of State because she is concerned about Rice’s credibility in the aftermath of presenting what turned out to be an inaccurate portrayal of the Sept. 11 Benghazi terror attacks. Yet, Collins was not at all concerned about President Bush’s decision to nominate Condoleezza Rice as the nation’s top diplomat, despite her role in presenting false information that provided the justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Appearing on CNN, Collins hammered home various GOP talking points about concerns that Rice may have acted overly political in providing an overview of the Obama administration’s knowledge in the aftermath of the attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, and said that damaged Rice’s credibility to be the top State Department official:

COLLINS: It’s important that the secretary of state enjoy credibility around the world with Congress and here in our country as well. And I am concerned that Susan Rice’s credibility may have been damaged by the misinformation that was presented that day. That’s one reason, as I said, that I wish she had just told the White House no, you should send a political person to be on those Sunday shows.

Watch it:

Collins’ statements throughout the day on Wednesday, on CNN and elsewhere, leave several questions unanswered. The first is why the focus on a nominee’s judgement is so much more important now than in 2004 and 2005. Shortly after President Bush nominated Condoleezza Rice to be the next Secretary of State in November, 2004, Collins praised the move, saying Bush “made a very good choice.” Collins, in turn, voted for her confirmation along with almost all of her Republican colleagues.

Condoleezza Rice had spent many months prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq convincing the public of the threat that Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction program presented to the United States, including famously stating that “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” Her statements led the U.S. into a war in Iraq that will end up costing the U.S. trillions of dollars and leaving tens of thousands dead or wounded. We knew by the time Condoleezza Rice was nominated that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Another question to ask is why Rice’s name is now being brought up in relation to a set of Embassy bombings from 14 years ago. Collins earlier on Wednesday said, “What troubles me so much is the Benghazi attack in many ways echoes the attacks on those embassies in 1998, when Susan Rice was head of the African region for our State Department.”
Read more

Security

GOP Senators Say They Won’t Pre-Judge Susan Rice Before Potential Secretary Of State Nod

Republican Sens. Susan Collins (ME) and Bob Corker (TN) said after their meetings with U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice on Wednesday that they will wait to judge her potential nomination for Secretary of State and will give any nominee a “full hearing” without making any “premature” statements. The senators’ comments stand in contrast to those made by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who on Tuesday pledged to place a hold on Rice bid for Secretary of State should she be nominated.

Collins told reporters today that it would be “premature” to reach a “judgment now” on Rice. The Republican from Maine, who rebuffed Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) request to create a Watergate-style investigative committee on Benghazi, said she still needs “additional information” before she “could support her nomination” for Secretary of State. Corker said in a separate press conference that whomever is nominated as the nation’s top diplomat, he’ll “give that person a full hearing, as I always do.” Watch clips from the press conferences here:

This isn’t the first group of Republican Senators to separate themselves from McCain’s plan to block Rice, or any nominee, and instead promise to grant a full and fair hearing. Indeed, Sens. Marco Rubio (FL) and Rand Paul (KY) stated that they would not pre-judge any potential nominee for Secretary of State and would instead focus on a full hearing.

Update

Sen. John Thune (R-ND) told CNN today that he’d keep an “open mind” if Susan Rice is nominated for Secretary of State.

NEWS FLASH

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) Endorses Immigration Equality Bill | Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has become the first Republican to sponsor the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow Americans to sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration purposes. Such sponsorship is not currently allowed because the federal government cannot recognize same-sex binational couples under the Defense of Marriage Act. Collins explained, “This important civil rights legislation would help prevent committed, loving families from being forced to choose between leaving their family or leaving their country.”

Economy

Senators Want To Give Wall Street Lobbyists New ‘Powerful Set Of Tools’ To Delay Financial Regulations

House and Senate Republicans succeeded in watering down some of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act’s toughest new rules before it became law in 2010. Now, a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Mark Warner (D-VA) are pushing new legislation that could make it even harder to implement new financial regulations that manage to become law.

The bill could “delay a number of rules for the financial industry” by giving the White House the ability second-guess independent regulatory agencies and order additional reviews of the effects of new rules, as the New York Times reports:

The measure, which a Senate committee is planning to debate this month, aims to empower the president in the rule-writing process. The proposal would allow the White House to second-guess major rules and mandate that agencies carefully study the economic effects of new regulation. The change could, in effect, delay a number of rules for the financial industry. [...]

The bill, introduced in the Senate last month, would offer a path to challenge the Dodd-Frank law, the sprawling regulatory overhaul passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Regulators have already encountered significant delays as the financial industry mounts legal challenges to the law.

New financial regulations have already faced significant hurdles in the implementation process thanks to lawsuits and other delays. This legislation would make those delays even worse, particularly in the hands of a president who does not want to implement regulations on Wall Street, according to the advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform.

“Although it may appear to be a simple change in administrative requirements for cost benefit analysis, this legislation would give Wall Street lobbyists another powerful set of tools to delay and derail the implementation of financial safeguards that are needed to protect our economy,” AFR wrote in a letter opposing the law. “Independent financial agencies already face extensive requirements for economic analysis, as well as mechanisms of appeal for those requirements. This legislation would add an unnecessary, costly, and time-consuming additional layer of requirements to the process of completing oversight rules for our largest banks.”

LGBT

Senate Takes Significant Step With Domestic Partnership Benefits Bill

Our guest blogger is Ben Harris, intern for LGBT Progress.

Yesterday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed legislation that extends health insurance and other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.  Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the bill, called the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act, which if passed into law would extend health insurance and a number of other workplace benefits to federal employees and their same-sex partners.

Because of discriminatory laws like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), gay federal employees do not have full access to benefits currently afforded to straight federal employees and their spouses. Without access to health insurance through their partners, many gay individuals must either purchase costly insurance plans in the private market or forgo health insurance, a considerable financial risk should be they become seriously ill. Yesterday, the Senate committee advanced a bill that would significantly alleviate that risk and bolster economic security for gay couples in the federal workforce.

Passing this bill out of committee is long overdue. Not only does this mean equal treatment for gay employees in the federal workforce, it also ensures that we attract the best and brightest workers into public service. When it was introduced back in November, Senator Collins remarked :

COLLINS: This change is both fair policy and good business practice. The federal government must compete with the private sector when it comes to attracting the most qualified, skilled, and dedicated employees. Today, health, medical, and other benefits are a major component of any competitive employment package. Indeed, private sector employers are increasingly offering these kinds of benefits as standard fare.

She’s right. Eighty-six percent of Fortune 100 companies offer equal health care benefits to employees with same-sex partners, according to the Human Rights Campaign. And research shows that when you treat gay workers equally on the job, what results is a happier, healthier, and more productive workforce.

Some, like Governor Rick Snyder (R) of Michigan, who recently vetoed a bill to extend domestic partner benefits to state employees, oppose equality in the workplace because they say it costs too much. They’re wrong . The take-up rate for domestic partner benefits is extremely low and it is likely that the boon from attracting a more talented and productive workforce outweighs any costs of providing equal benefits to gay couples.

What’s more, passing laws that extend workplace benefits to gay employees is politically popular. A whopping 8 in 10 Americans believe gay employees should be given equal benefits on the job. Even Mitt Romney agrees. Just last week, after restating his opposition to marriage equality, he voiced his support : “My view is that domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate.”

Conservatives and corporations should take a cue from the American people: workplace equality is critical to fostering a more efficient and effective government.

NEWS FLASH

Senate Committee Advances Domestic Partner Benefits | Today, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee advanced the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. The bill would ensure that the same-sex partners of federal workers have access to the same benefits straight employees currently receive, including health insurance, long-term care, family and medical leave, and retirement benefits. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), the only Republican sponsor of the bill, explained that “it’s just a matter of making the federal government’s benefits structure comparable of those of large employers.”

NEWS FLASH

Collins Amendment Defending Toxic Industrial Boiler Pollution Fails Narrowly | An amendment to the transportation bill by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) to block air toxic rules for industrial boilers failed to pass, despite gaining several Democratic votes in support of the Republican minority. The lobbyist-designed amendment (SA 1660 to S.1813), which would have killed the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Boiler MACT” rules rules for air toxics from incinerators and industrial power plants, failed to reach the required 60-vote threshold on a 52-46 vote. Democrats supporting this attack on public health included Sens. Bob Casey (D-PA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).

Health

Republican Women Senators Breaking Ranks With Party, Come Out In Favor Of Obama Contraception Rule

While GOP senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has pledged to fight the Obama’s administration’s modified regulation requiring health insurers and busnisses to offer contraception coverage without additional cost sharing, the revised rule “appears to have won over” two of the five Republican women senators.

Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME) — both of whom have sponsored legislation requiring insurers to offer contraception benefits in all health plans — are in favor of the new compromise, which would allow religiously affiliated colleges, universities, and hospitals to avoid providing birth control. Their employees will still receive contraception coverage at no additional cost sharing directly from the insurer:

It appears that changes have been made that provide women’s health services without compelling Catholic organizations in particular to violate the beliefs and tenets of their faith,” Snowe said in a statement. “According to the Catholic Health Association, the administration ‘responded to the issues [they] identified that needed to be fixed,’ which is what I urged the president to do in addressing this situation.

“While I will carefully review the details of the president’s revised proposal, it appears to be a step in the right direction,” Collins said in a statement. “The administration’s original plan was deeply flawed and clearly would have posed a threat to religious freedom. It presented the Catholic Church with its wide-ranging social, educational, and health care services, and many other faith-based organizations, with an impossible choice between violating their religious beliefs or violating federal regulations. The administration has finally listened to the concerns raised by many and appears to be seeking to avoid the threat to religious liberties posed by its original plan.”

Republicans in the senate seem determined to oppose the compromise and have introduced legislation that would allow employers or individuals to opt out of any benefit that undermines their moral beliefs. “They don’t have the authority under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to tell someone in this country or some organization in this country what their religious beliefs are,” McConnell told “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “This issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down,” he said.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who led the GOP’s opposition to the original rule, has yet to issue a statement on the measure and did not respond to ThinkProgress’ query about her position. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) also did not respond. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) co-sponsored a 1999 bill requiring contraception equity in insurance coverage and has not yet to weigh in on the current debate.

Update

Ayotte tells the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that she still opposes Obama’s proposal:

“The president’s proposal leaves religious institutions vulnerable to federal coercion. This debate has always been about religious freedom. As I fight for a full repeal of Obamacare, I will continue to push for a legislative solution that protects conscience rights.”

Health

Six Republican Senators — Including Snowe And Collins — Co-Sponsored Federal Contraception Mandate In 2001

Republicans have gone to war against President Obama’s regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide contraception coverage, portraying the measure as a “government takeover” of health care and pledging to repeal the rule in Congress. The measure, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, says that companies offering coverage must also provide birth control insurance (but exempts houses of worship and nonprofits primarily employing and serving those of the same faith).

The Obama measure closely resembles state laws providing equity in insurance coverage for contraception in six states and actually offers far more conscience protections than previous Congressional efforts to expand women’s access to birth control. For instance, a 2001 bill co-sponsored by Republicans Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME), Susan Collins (ME), Lincoln Chafee (RI), Gordon Smith (OR), John Warner (VA), Arlen Specter (PA) — S. 104 — sought to establish parity for contraceptive prescriptions within the context of coverage already guaranteed by insurance plans, but offered no opt-out clause for religious groups who opposed contraception:

SEC. 714. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR CONTRACEPTIVES.

`(a) REQUIREMENTS FOR COVERAGE- A group health plan, and a health insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan, may not–

`(1) exclude or restrict benefits for prescription contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration, or generic equivalents approved as substitutable by the Food and Drug Administration, if such plan provides benefits for other outpatient prescription drugs or devices; or

`(2) exclude or restrict benefits for outpatient contraceptive services if such plan provides benefits.

“Women shouldn’t be held hostage by virtue of where they live,” Snowe told a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing in September of 2001. “It simply is not fair.” “All we’re saying in this legislation is that if health insurance plans provide coverage for prescription drugs that that coverage has to extend to FDA-approved prescription contraceptives. It’s that simple.”

At the time, religious groups also raised concerns about the measure and Snowe promised to add a “conscience clause” that is similar to the exemption included in Maine’s law. Incidentally, that language is very similar to the conscience protections included in Obama’s regulation.

Older

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

Sign Up