Lamar Alexander on Government Reform Republican Sr Senator (TN); previously candidate for President

The Era of the 1,000-Page Bill Is Over

"I think it's obvious that we in Congress have been biting off more than we can chew on immigration, health care, and other issues. We've been producing 1,000-page bills which most members of Congress haven't even read, in which voters have no confidence, and out of which will come unintended consequences and results that are bad for our country. It inevitably adds to the national debt, at a time when we're adding $9 trillion to the debt in just ten years and everyone is worried about how we're going to pay that back. And at a time, fairly or unfairly, where the American people are seeing a new administration propose, it seems like, a new Washington takeover every other day--the banks, insurance companies, student loans, and now health care."

Two-year budget to reduce pork barrel spending

Here are the advantages:
• Funding decisions would be made in the first year, leaving the second year for management and oversight.
• There would be less time for wasteful pork barrel spending. free speech and for real campaign finance reform. Let’s continue the ban on corporate contributions, but take limits off individual contributions and spending. Let’s simplify the rules and have maximum disclosure, with stiff fines for failure to disclose. The whole idea behind the Bill of Rights was to keep government from limiting political debate. Source: Campaign web site, www.AlexanderForSenate.com, “Agenda” , May 27, 2002

  Campaign finance reform is wrong, and abridges free speech

  Did you know you could go to jail for mentioning your candidate in an ad sixty days before an election? It’s part of the so-called Campaign Finance Reform bill passed by Congress.

  We’ve had 25 years experience with ‘reforms’ that tell you what you can do or say in a campaign. Here’s the result: fewer candidates; longer campaigns; more rich candidates spending their own money; more say for Washington insiders and the news media and less for you.

  That’s not right. I’ll fight against limits on Senator Lamar Alexander made the following remarks on the floor of the Senate on Tuesday: "It's time for Congress to admit that we don't do comprehensive well. It's time for us to admit that the era of the 1,000-page bill is over."

  "I think it's obvious that we in Congress have been biting off more than we can chew on immigration, health care, and other issues. We've been producing 1,000-page bills which most members of Congress haven't even read, in which voters have no confidence, and out of

  Source: Link , May 27, 2002

  Complete Reagan Revolution with term limits & line-item veto

  In case anyone doubts that the revolution Reagan started and Perot encouraged and that elected a Republican Congress is stuck in Washington DC, let us just look at the scorecard. The economy is still sluggish. The Balanced Budget Amendment is not passed. We do not yet have a line-item veto. There are still million dollar pensions. We do not have term limits. No one is serious about abolishing the Department of Education. We do not have a capital gains tax cut. Source: United We Stand America Conference, p.309 , Aug 12, 1995

  Supreme Court should interpret Constitution literally

  On appointing pro-life Supreme Court justices: “He would appoint judges who share his philosophy” and would “interpret the constitution the way it was written,” said Alexander’s political director. Source: (cross-ref from Abortion) Associated Press on 2000 race , Jun 14, 1999

  Campaign Finance: fewer restrictions & fuller disclosure.

  [Regarding Campaign Finance]: “I am for fewer restrictions and fuller disclosure. I think we ought to raise the limit on campaign donations from individuals so they can outweigh special interest groups. We should also scale back the federal rules so that less money is spent on lawyers, accountants, and administration.” Source: 1996 National Political Awareness Test, Project Vote Smart , Jul 2, 1996

  Voted YES on Congressional pay raise.

  Congressional Summary:
  Makes appropriations to the Senate for FY2010 for:
  1. expense allowances;
  2. representation allowances for the Majority and Minority Leaders;
  3. salaries of specified officers, employees, and committees (including the Committee on Appropriations);
  4. agency contributions for employee benefits;
  5. inquiries and investigations;
  6. the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control;
  7. the Offices of the Secretary and of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;
  8. miscellaneous items;
  9. the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account; and
  10. official mail costs.
  Amends the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act of 1968 to increase by $50,000 the gross compensation paid all employees in the office of a Senator. Increases by $96,000 per year the aggregate amount authorized for the offices of the Majority and Minority Whip.

  Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D, FL-20): We, as Members of Congress, have responsibility not just for the institution, but for the staff that work for this institution, and to preserve the facilities that help support this institution. We have endeavored to do that responsibly, and I believe we have accomplished that goal.

  Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SCALISE (R, LA-1): It's a sad day when someone attempts to cut spending in a bill that grows government by the size of 7%, and it's not allowed to be debated on this House floor. Some of their Members actually used the term "nonsense" and "foolishness" when describing our amendments to cut spending; they call that a delaying tactic. Well, I think Americans all across this country want more of those types of delaying tactics to slow down this runaway train of massive Federal spending. Every dollar we spend from today all the way through the end of this year is borrowed money. We don't have that money. We need to control what we're spending.

  Reference: Legislative Branch Appropriations Act; Bill HR2918&S1294 ; vote number 2009-S217 on Jul 6, 2009

  Voted NO on providing a US House seat for the District of Columbia.

  Congressional Summary:
  • The District of Columbia shall be considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.
  • DC shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the US Senate.
  • Reapportionment [census-based House seats] shall apply with respect to DC in the same manner as it applies to a State, except that DC may not receive more than one Member.
  • Effective with the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 437 Members, including the Member representing DC.
  • The State of Utah is entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this reapportionment.

  Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): I am cosponsoring the legislation to provide a House seat for DC and an additional House seat for Utah. Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in 1820 that Congress' legislative authority over DC allows taxation of DC. Do opponents of giving DC a House seat believe that DC is suitable for taxation but not for representation?

  Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I make a constitutional point of order against this bill on the grounds that it violates article I, section 2, of the Constitution. I appreciate the frustration felt by the residents of DC at the absence of a vote in Congress. According to many experts, DC is not a State, so therefore is not entitled to that representation. Also, one has to raise the obvious question: If DC is entitled to a Representative, why isn't Puerto Rico, which would probably entail 9 or 10 Members of Congress? [With regards to the seat for Utah], this is obviously partisan horse-trading.

  Reference: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act; Bill S.160 ; vote number 2009-S073 on Feb 26, 2009

  Voted NO on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress.

  Cloture vote on the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act:
  • Considers D.C. a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House.
  • D.C. shall not be considered a state for representation in the Senate.
  • Limits D.C. to one Member under any reapportionment.
  • Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437.
  • Entitles Utah to one additional Representative until the next census, and modifies the reapportionment formula thereafter.
  [Washington DC currently has a "delegate" to the US House, whose vote does not count. Utah had complained that the 2000 census did not count many Utahns on Mormon missions abroad].

  Opponents recommend voting NO because:

  Sen. BYRD: In 1978, I voted for H.J. Res. 554, that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of D.C. [That amendment passed the Senate but was not ratified by the States]. While I recognize that others believe that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over D.C., the historical intent of the Founders on this point is unclear. I oppose S.1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of the Constitution by passing a simple bill.

  Proponents support voting YES because:

  Sen. HATCH. There are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue,and think most people know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. For those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, [we include an] expedited provision that will get us to the Supreme Court to make an appropriate decision. It will never pass as a constitutional amendment. There are 600,000 people in D.C., never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House. This bill would remedy that situation.

  Reference: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act; Bill S. 1257 ; vote number 2007-339 on Sep 18, 2007

  Voted YES on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.

  Vote on Dole Amdt. S.2350, amending SP2350 (via the College Cost Reduction Act): To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require individuals voting in person to present photo identification.

  Proponents support voting YES because:

  Sen. DOLE. I am proposing a commonsense measure to uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require voters to show photo identification at the polls would go a long way in minimizing potential for voter fraud. When a fraudulent vote is cast and counted, the vote of a legitimate voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure that one of the hallmarks of our democracy, our free and fair elections, is protected. Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly support this initiative.

  Opponents recommend voting NO because:

  Sen. FEINSTEIN. If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote for this because this measure goes into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. Many of these people do not have driver's licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008 [to affect the presidential election]. I urge a "no" vote.

  Reference: Dole Amendment to the Help America Vote Act; Bill S.2350, amending SP2350 ; vote number 2007-269 on Jul 19, 2007

  Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.

  A motion to table (kill) an amendment to clarify the application of the gift rule to lobbyists. Voting NAY would define employees of lobbying companies as registered lobbyists and therefore subject to the gift ban. Voting YEA would apply the gift ban only to specific people who registered as lobbyists.
  Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY on the tabling motion because:
  • Using the term "registered lobbyist'' will create a huge loophole. The Ethics Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, but not the organization.
  • So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call, that would be permitted.
  • If these companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, "We just banned gifts from lobbyists,'' because we didn't.
  Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA on the tabling motion because:
  • I can tolerate not accepting gifts from lobbyists. But this amendment goes a step further which is problematic.

    For example, I am a big fan of McDonald's. What about the kids working behind the counter? Would they be considered registered lobbyists because McDonald's has lobbyists? Would I not be able to go to lunch with my longtime friend who owns 12 McDonald's?

  • Every company in the Fortune 1000 employs a lobbyist, either a private firm or an in-house lobbyist. Under this amendment, every person who works for Exxon, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and countless other businesses that employ lobbyists in Washington would be considered registered lobbyists.
  • If we want to ban the CEO and chairman of the board of the company from paying for a meal, or the head of a labor union, do that specifically. But this is so broadly developed I think it goes way beyond that.
  Reference: Feingold Amendment to Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act; Bill S.Amdt.2962 to S.2349 ; vote number 2006-080 on Mar 29, 2006

  Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.

  An amendment to establish the Senate Office of Public Integrity. Voting YEA would establish the new office, and voting NAY would keep ethics investigations within the existing Senate Ethics Committee.
  Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because:
  • We have heard from the media about the bribes and scandals, but we have heard only silence from the House Ethics Committee. One of the greatest travesties of these scandals is not what Congress did, but what it didn't do.
  • The American people perceive the entire ethics system--House and Senate--to be broken. We can pass all the ethics reforms we want--gift bans, travel bans, lobbying restrictions--but none of them will make a difference if there isn't a nonpartisan, independent body that will help us enforce those laws.
  • The Office of Public Integrity established in this amendment would provide a voice that cannot be silenced by political pressures. It would have the power to initiate independent investigations and bring its findings to the Ethics Committees in a transparent manner.
  Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
  • The Constitution gave us not only the right but the duty to create our own rules, including the rules concerning our ethics. They are enforced internally by the Senate itself.
  • The decisions made under this amendment would be no different than right now. The final decision will be made by the Senate Ethics Committee. All this really does is find a way to further publicize that complaints have been made.
  • We have people accusing us almost daily of having done something wrong and publishing it through blogs and all that. I think we should be very careful in setting up another tool for these bloggers to create more charges against the Senate.
  • I cannot support an amendment that either replaces the Senate Ethics Committee or adds another layer to our already expensive and time-consuming process. I urge the Senate to defeat this provision.
  Reference: Collins Amendment to Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act; Bill S.Amdt.3176 to S.2349 ; vote number 2006-077 on Mar 28, 2006

  Ensure delivery of absentee ballots for troops overseas.

  Alexander co-sponsored ensuring delivery of absentee ballots for troops overseas

  A bill to improve procedures for the collection and delivery of absentee ballots of absent overseas uniformed services voters. Congress makes the following findings:

  1. In the defense of freedom, members of the United States Armed Forces are routinely deployed to overseas locations.
  2. We live in what senior Army leaders have referred to as an 'era of persistent conflict'.
  3. The right to vote is one of the most basic and fundamental rights enjoyed by Americans, and one which the members of the Armed Forces bravely defend.
  4. The ability of the members of the Armed Forces to vote while serving overseas has been hampered by numerous factors, including inadequate processes for ensuring their timely receipt of absentee ballots, delivery methods that are typically slow and antiquated, and a myriad of absentee voting procedures that are often confusing.
  5. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which requires the States to allow absentee voting for members of the Armed Forces and other specified groups of United States citizens, was intended to protect the voting rights of members of the Armed Forces.
  6. 992,034 absentee ballots were requested in the 2006 general election. However, less than one-third of such ballots were ultimately received by local election officials, evidencing an unacceptable failure of the current absentee ballot system.
  7. Modern technology continues to rapidly advance, greatly expanding the range of potential solutions to these problems and increasing the ability to remove obstacles encountered by overseas members of the Armed Forces in the past in trying to cast their votes; [specifically]:
  • Collection- establish procedures for collecting absentee ballots
  • Ensuring Delivery Prior to Closing of Polls- ensure that any absentee ballot which is collected prior to the applicable deadline is delivered prior to the time established by the State for the closing of the polls on the date of the election.
  Source: S.3073 08-S3073 on May 22, 2008

  Require Internet disclosure of all earmarks.

  Alexander signed H.R.5258& S.3335
  • Establishes a free public searchable website, listing all requests by Members of Congress for congressionally directed spending items (congressional earmarks).
  • Requires each congressional committee, within five calendar days of receipt of a request for a congressional earmark from a Member of Congress, to provide the initial information regarding that request that is required to be placed on the website.
  • Makes it out of order to consider any legislation unless it meets the requirements of this Act.
  The website shall be comprised of a database including the following information, in searchable format, for each earmark:
  1. The fiscal year in which the item would be funded.
  2. The number of the bill or joint resolution for which the request is made, if available.
  3. The amount of the initial request made by the Member of Congress.
  4. The amount approved by the committee of jurisdiction.
  5. The amount carried in the bill or joint resolution (or accompanying report) as passed.
  6. The name of the department or agency, and the account or program, through which the item will be funded.
  7. The name and the State or district of the Member of Congress who made the request.
  8. The name and address of the intended recipient.
  9. The type of organization (public, private nonprofit, or private for profit entity) of the intended recipient.
  10. The project name, description, and estimated completion date.
  11. A justification of the benefit to taxpayers.
  12. Whether the request is for a continuing project and if so, when funds were first appropriated for such project.
  13. A description, if applicable, of all non-Federal sources of funding.
  14. Its current status in the legislative process
  Source: Earmark Transparency Act 10-HR5258 on May 11, 2010

  Prohibit IRS audits targeting Tea Party political groups.

  Alexander co-sponsored Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act

  Congressional summary:: Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act: Requires the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standards and definitions in effect on January 1, 2010, for determining whether an organization qualifies for tax-exempt status as an organization operated exclusively for social welfare to apply to such determinations after enactment of this Act. Prohibits any regulation, or other ruling, not limited to a particular taxpayer relating to such standards and definitions.

  Proponent's argument in favor (Heritage Action, Feb. 26, 2014): H.R. 3865 comes in the wake of an attack on the Tea Party and other conservative organizations. The current IRS regulation is so broad and ill-defined that the IRS applies a "facts and circumstances" test to determine what constitutes "political activity" by an organization. This test can vary greatly depending on the subjective views of the particular IRS bureaucrat applying the test. IRS employees took advantage of this vague and subjective standard to unfairly delay granting tax-exempt status to Tea Party organizations and subject them to unreasonable scrutiny.

  Text of sample IRS letter to Tea Party organizations:We need more information before we can complete our consideration of your application for exemption. Please provide the information requested on the enclosed Information Request by the response due date. Your response must be signed by an authorized person or officer whose name is listed on your application.

  • Have you conducted or will you conduct candidate forums or other events at which candidates running for public offices are invited to speak?
  • Have you attempted or will you attempt to influence the outcome of specific legislation?
  • Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies?
  • Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for public office or political party?
  Source: H.R.3865 & S.2011 14-S2011 on Feb 11, 2014

  Voted NO on two articles of impeachment against Trump.

  Alexander voted NAY Impeachment of President Trump

  RESOLUTION: Impeaching Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.

  ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER: Using the powers of his high office, Pres. Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 US Presidential election. He did so through a course of conduct that included
  1. Pres. Trump--acting both directly and through his agents--corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph Biden; and a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine--rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election.
  2. With the same corrupt motives, Pres. Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested: (A) the release of $391 million that Congress had appropriated for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression; and (B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought.
  3. Faced with the public revelation of his actions, Pres. Trump ultimately released the [funds] to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.
  These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in US elections.
  ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS:
  1. Pres. Trump defied a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought [by Congress];
  2. defied lawful subpoenas [for] the production of documents and records;
  3. and directed current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees.
  These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump's previous efforts to undermine US Government investigations into foreign interference in US elections. Source: Congressional vote ImpeachK on Dec 18, 2019

  Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Lamar Alexander. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Lamar Alexander. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Lamar Alexander. Click here for a summary of Lamar Alexander's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other TN politicians. Click here for issue statements from TN primary archives. Click here for issue statements from TN secondary archives.
  Other candidates on Government Reform:		Lamar Alexander on other issues:
  TN Gubernatorial: Bill Haslam Bill Lee David French Diane Black Karl Dean Mark Green TN Senatorial: Bill Hagerty Bob Corker James Mackler Larry Crim Manny Sethi Marquita Bradshaw Marsha Blackburn Phil Bredesen Stephen Fincher TN politicians TN Archives	Senate races 2019-20: AK: Sullivan(R,incumbent) vs.Gross(I) vs.Blatchford(D) AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs.Tuberville(R) vs.Sessions(R) vs.Moore(R) vs.Rogers(D) vs.Merrill(R) AR: Cotton(R,incumbent) vs.Harrington(L) vs.Whitfield(I) vs.Mahony(D) AZ: McSally(R,incumbent) vs.Kelly(D) CO: Gardner(R,incumbent) vs.Hickenlooper(D) vs.Madden(D) vs.Baer(D) vs.Walsh(D) vs.Johnston(D) vs.Romanoff(D) vs.Burnes(D) vs.Williams(D) DE: Coons(D,incumbent) vs.Scarane(D) vs.Witzke(R) vs.DeMartino(R) GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed) vs.Collins(R) vs.Tarver(D) vs.Warnock(D) vs.Carter(D) vs.Lieberman(D) vs.Grayson(R) vs.Buckley(L) GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent) vs.Ossoff(D) vs.Tomlinson(D) vs.Terry(D) IA: Ernst(R,incumbent) vs.Greenfield(D) vs.Graham(D) vs.Mauro(D) vs.Franken(D) ID: Risch(R,incumbent) vs.Jordan(D) vs.Harris(D) IL: Durbin(D,incumbent) vs.Curran(R) vs.Stava-Murray(D) KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs.Marshall(R) vs.Bollier(D) vs.LaTurner(R) vs.Wagle(R) vs.Kobach(R) vs.Lindstrom(R) vs.Grissom(D) KY: McConnell(R,incumbent) vs.McGrath(D) vs.Morgan(R) vs.Cox(D) vs.Tobin(D) vs.Booker(D) LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent) vs.Perkins(D) vs.Pierce(D)	MA: Markey(D,incumbent) vs.O`Connor(R) vs.Ayyadurai(R) vs.Kennedy(D) vs.Liss-Riordan(D) ME: Collins(R,incumbent) vs.Gideon(D) vs.Sweet(D) vs.Rice(D) MI: Peters(D,incumbent) vs.James(R) vs.Squier(G) MN: Smith(D,incumbent) vs.Lewis(R) vs.Overby(G) vs.Carlson(D) MS: Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent) vs.Espy(D) vs.Bohren(D) MT: Daines(R,incumbent) vs.Bullock(D) vs.Collins(D) vs.Driscoll(R) vs.Mues(D) vs.Geise(L) NC: Tillis(R,incumbent) vs.Cunningham(D) vs.E.Smith(D) vs.S.Smith(R) vs.Tucker(R) vs.Mansfield(D) NE: Sasse(R,incumbent) vs.Janicek(R) NH: Shaheen(D,incumbent) vs.Messner(R) vs.Martin(D) vs.Bolduc(R) vs.O'Brien(R) NJ: Booker(D,incumbent) vs.Mehta(R) vs.Singh(R) vs.Meissner(R) NM: Udall(D,retiring) vs.Lujan(D) vs.Ronchetti(R) vs.Walsh(L) vs.Clarkson(R) vs.Oliver(D) vs.Rich(R) OK: Inhofe(R,incumbent) vs.Broyles(D) vs.Workman(D) OR: Merkley(D,incumbent) vs.Perkins(R) vs.Romero(R) RI: Reed(D,incumbent) vs.Waters(R) SC: Graham(R,incumbent) vs.Harrison(D) vs.Tinubu(D) SD: Rounds(R,incumbent) vs.Ahlers(D) vs.Borglum(R) TN: Alexander(R,retiring) vs.Hagerty(R) vs.Bradshaw(D) vs.Sethi(R) vs.Mackler(D) vs.Crim(R) TX: Cornyn(R,incumbent) vs.Hegar(D) vs.Hernandez(D) vs.Bell(D) vs.Ramirez(D) vs.West(D) VA: Warner(D,incumbent) vs.Taylor(R) vs.Gade(R) WV: Capito(R,incumbent) vs.Swearengin(D) vs.Ojeda(D) WY: Enzi(R,retiring) vs.Lummis(R) vs.Ben-David(D) vs.Ludwig(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
  Contact info: Email Contact Form Fax Number: 202-228-3398 Mailing Address: Senate Office SD-455, Washington, DC 20510

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Oct 23, 2020