Mediaboss Marketing

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:April 19, 2023Contact:Press_Paul@paul.senate.gov,202-224-4343

WASHINGTON, D.C. Today, the Senate will vote on U.S. Senator Rand Pauls (R-KY)Support the Reinstatement of Trained and Effective Firefightersamendment which makes funding available to fire departments that terminated firefighters for refusing vaccination or voicing opposition to COVID-19 mandates only if they offer full reinstatement and backpay to those who lost their jobs. The amendment is being considered as part of S.870, the Fire Grants and Safety Act.

Ahead of the vote at 11:30 a.m. ET, Dr. Paul will deliver remarks on the Senate Floor. You can watch itHERE, and find full text of Dr. Pauls amendmentHERE.

Background:

One of the purposes of the Fire Grants and Safety Act is to fund the hiring of more firefighters. But over the last few years, even as these grants were awarded, firefighters around the country found themselves with a choice: submit to COVID vaccine mandates and forgo your First Amendment rights to voice opposition to them or lose your livelihood.

InNew York,Los Angeles, andSeattle, among other places, firefighters lost their jobs simply because they insisted upon living according to their conscience. Firing trained and effectivefirefighters for no good reason is dangerous, particularly when serious shortages of firefighters are reported throughout the country.

Dr. Pauls amendment would make the grants provided by this bill available to fire departments that dismissed or discharged firefighters for refusing COVID vaccination or voicing opposition to COVID mandates only if they offer full reinstatement and back pay to firefighters who lost their jobs.

###

Follow this link:
Senate to Vote on Dr. Rand Paul's Amendment to Protect ... - Senator Rand Paul

As TikTok has mushroomed to more than 150 million monthly U.S. users, so have warnings among both state legislators and members of Congress about its potential danger as a tool of the Chinese government.

Dozens of states and the federal government this year banned public employees from downloading the popular app on their government devices. But the Montana Legislature went further and on Friday passed the nationsfirst statewide ban, though GOP Gov. Greg Gianforte has not yet signed the measure and its not clear how it would be enforced. If it becomes law, it would go into effect on Jan. 1.

Members of both parties ina U.S. House hearingin March told TikTok CEO Shou Chew they were considering a total, nationwide ban. That idea has raised a slew of objections, not the least of which is how banning an app that provides a platform for speech could be consistent with the First Amendment.

Below are answers to five common questions about the debate in the nations capital.

Why does Congress want to ban TikTok?

Members of both parties have expressed concerns about TikToks data collection practices and its ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Chew said the data TikTok collects from users is no different from those of other platforms, including domestic products like Instagram. TikTok is based in Singapore and Los Angeles, Chew said. The product is not even available in China, whose ruling Communist Party does not offer the same guarantees of free speech as the U.S. Constitution.

But lawmakers say TikTok is unique because the Chinese government could compel the company to provide its user data.

TikToks parent company, ByteDance, is Chinese, and is beholden to laws that require private companies to provide information to Chinese authorities, lawmakers have said.

The CCPs laws require Chinese companies like ByteDance to spy on their behalf, Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, the chairwoman of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, told Chew during the March 23 hearing. That means any Chinese company must grant the CCP access and manipulation capabilities as a design feature.

Attempts to ban TikTok are also part of a trend of lawmakers seeking to appear tough on China. U.S. House Republicans created a select committee this year to respond to Chinas rising power. And members of both parties have voiced support for restrictions on foreign ownership of farmland, mainly targeting China.

What proposals have the most support?

There are leading contenders from a host of options in each chamber of Congress.

In the Senate, 13 Democrats and 13 Republicans have signed on to support theRESTRICT Act, written by Virginia Democrat Mark Warner and South Dakota Republican John Thune. Jake Sullivan, a high-ranking national security official in President Joe Bidens White House, applauded the measure.

The bill would authorize the secretary of Commerce to ban applications from six adversarial countries, including China.

But key senators, including the chair and ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and floor leaders of each party, have not signed on.

Civil libertarians on both the far left of the Democratic Party and the far right of the Republican Party have voiced their disapproval, Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in an interview.

The bill also lacks support from some senators who favor TikTok bans.

Missouri Republican Josh Hawley, the sponsor ofanother billto explicitly ban TikTok, said in a March 29tweetthat the Warner-Thune measure does not go far enough

The problem with the RESTRICT Act is it doesnt ban TikTok, he wrote. It gives the President a whole bunch of new authority and does nothing to stop the CCP. Just ban TikTok.

In the House, the Foreign Affairs Committee approveda billby its chairman, Texas Republican Michael McCaul. But no Democrats voted for the measure in committee. A party-line vote could send the measure through the House, but it would need bipartisan support to pass the Senate.

How would the bans work?

Its not entirely clear, but a ban would likely involve blocking companies like Apple and Google from offering TikTok in their app sto

The two leading bills would take different regulatory approaches the Senate version would go through the Commerce Department, while the House bill provides authorities to the Treasury Department, for example but users would likely see similar effects under either.

Mobile device makers can approve or reject applications from appearing in app stores. Removing TikTok from those sources would keep users from downloading the app. Those who already have the app on their devices would see its usability decrease over time as updates could not be installed.

But the technical uncertainty about how exactly a ban would play out was among the Democratic criticisms of the House bill.

Were being asked to rush this bill through committee with no input from sanction experts, technologists, the business community or even the regulatory agencies who would be in charge of enforcing a ban, Arizona Democrat Greg Stanton said at a March 1 markup of the bill.

Rhode Island Democrat David Cicilline said he was sympathetic to the national security concerns, but said the measure was not well-written and lacked definitions about critical components.

There is broad and maybe universal support on this committee to do exactly what this bill intends to do, but this is incredibly important that it be done right, Cicilline said. We all want very much to give the administration the tools that it needs, but in its current form without a lot of amplification and a lot of definitions its difficult for me to support this.

Didnt Trump already try this?

Former President Donald Trump did issue an executive order in 2020 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to ban TikTok, citing many of the same concerns members have recently brought.

A federal court struck down that order because under the law he cited, the president did not have authority to ban the app. Amendments to that law, enacted in 1988 and 1994, prevented presidents from regulating information and informational materials, such as books, movies or digital media.

The judge did not rule on the First Amendment concerns.

The Thune-Warner bill was written specifically to make such an order compliant with the IEEPA.

The RESTRICT Act responds to foreign-adversary technology threats of today by giving the force of law to former President Trumps nearly identical effort, and it prepares for the threats of the future so the United States isnt forced to play Whac-A-Mole every time a platform like TikTok rears its ugly head, Thune said in a statement.

Is any of this constitutional?

That will be the subject of debate.

In a March 29 response to Hawleys Senate floor speech, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul said proposals to ban an app that fostered free expression mirrored Chinas own TikTok ban.

The First Amendment protects even unpopular speech. Hawleys bill to ban the app would violate the free speech rights of both the owners of TikTok, some of whom are American, and the apps users, he said.

Do we really want to emulate Chinese speech bans? Paul said. We dont ban things that are unpopular in this country.

Hawley responded that the First Amendment did not protect espionage, which he said TikTok enabled the Chinese government to conduct.

A complete ban can only be consistent with the First Amendment if it is a response to immediate and significant harm and there is no less restrictive way to respond, Leventoff said.

That test is not going to be met, she said. We dont have any evidence of an immediate and significant harm. And even if we did have that evidence, its hard to argue that banning TikTok is the least restrictive solution.

While TikTok is sometimes described as a platform where young users share dance videos and other unserious content, political speech is also plentiful on the app, Leventoff said, making a nationwide ban even more dangerous from a free speech perspective.

We view this as an extremely important component of speech, she said.

Read the original post:
One state already has voted to ban TikTok. For Congress, its going ... - Missouri Independent

Term limits is on the move this week. In Oklahoma, the House of Representatives passed our bipartisan House Joint Resolution 1032 by a margin of 59 to 34. Now we head over to the State Senate for a vote. Make sure to call your Oklahoma state senators and ask them to support our resolution. In Tennessee, weve had some great success. House Joint Resolution 5 passed 66 to 26. Now, this one also heads to the state senate, so make sure to call your state senators in Tennessee.

Term limits were on the move. This is Holly Robichaud with Breaking News on Term Limits.

As you know, were working hard in the states to bypass Congress in order to get congressional term limits. As I mentioned in the opening, Oklahoma has passed the resolution in the House of Representatives. Now, the resolution sponsored by Jon Echols is headed to the state Senate. Make sure to call your state senators and urge them to vote for it.

In the volunteer State of Tennessee, the House of Representatives also passed House Resolution 5 sponsored by Chris Todd by a margin of 66 to 26. Now, that resolution is also headed to the state senate. Once again, call your state senators. In Tennessee, our state chair, who is the Knoxville county mayor, Glenn Jacobs, also known to millions as WWEs Kane will be joining us on this program to talk about term limits. So youll make sure you wanna listen next week.

Did you hear the news coming out of Washington DC this week? As Ive mentioned before, we have house joint resolution 11 filed by representative Ralph Norman. Well, were now up to 88 co-sponsors. This week, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Chuck Edwards of North Carolina, Claudia Tenney of New York, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington have joined on as co-sponsors of the legislation. Were excited to have them on board.

Now, house speaker Kevin McCarthy has promised us a vote, so we need you to take action and go to termlimits.com/McCarthy and urge Kevin McCarthy to have our vote on term limits for Congress. In DC, were not only making progress on the House side, but were also making progress on the Senate side. Were proud to announce this week that Senator Rand Paul has co-sponsored Senator Ted Cruzs Senate joint resolution 2 calling for congressional term limits. Thank you, senator Rand Paul for having the courage.

Do you know what you get when you dont have term limits? You get corrupt politicians, thats why every week we have a corrupt politician of the week. This week, former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder makes our list. Householder was found guilty on Thursday by a federal jury for participating in a racketeering conspiracy that involved nearly $61 million in bribes and $1.3 billion bailout for two struggling nuclear power plants. Householder received a $500,000 bribe through his tax-exempt social welfare organization, which he used to pay down credit card debt and repair a Florida property. Enough is enough. Its time for term limits.

Now, I wanna update you on one of the corrupt politicians of the week we previously mentioned, former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. Madigan was the longest and has the record for being the longest serving leader of any state in the entire country. Talk about needing term limits. Well, Madigan has unlimited amounts of money in his campaign account, and as of last week, he spent $8 million defending himself against corruption charges. In Illinois, he crafted the law that he can spend unlimited amounts of campaign contributions on his legal defense fund. See why we need term limits?

We elect people to Congress and state legislatures to be our voice. Well, that doesnt seem to be happening in North Dakota. The State House this week passed a resolution that would eliminate term limits for the legislature and the governor, which was just passed by a wide margin by the people of North Dakota, in last November. In that election, over 150,000 voters supported the resolution calling for term limits on the legislature and the governor. It passed by a margin of 63% to 36. Now, the legislature is trying to overturn the will of the people. Thats not what we want. People want term limits. And its unfortunate that the North Dakotas legislature is not listening to the people.

Have enough of politicians not listening to you? We need you to get involved so we can make congressional term limits a reality. We have a lot going on, whether its down in Congress or whether its across the states, we need you to help out. So please go to termlimits.com and get involved today and be sure to share this program with your friends every week. This is Holly Robichaud with Term Limits Breaking news. Well be back next week.

Here is the original post:
Breaking News Ep. 11: Progress in OK and TN! Call your state ... - U.S. Term Limits

Here's a look at how area members of Congress voted over the previous week.

China surveillance balloons: The House has passed the Upholding Sovereignty of Airspace Act (H.R. 1151), sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., to condemn China's surveillance balloon flights over the U.S. since 2017 and have the State Department work with other countries to oppose such flights as invasions of sovereign territory. Meeks said of the flights: "Such a violation of international law and U.S. sovereignty will not be tolerated and must not happen again."

The vote, on April 17, was 405 yeas to 6 nays. YEAS: Jake LaTurner, R-KS (2nd); Mark Alford, R-MO (4th); Eric Burlison, R-MO (7th).

Russia drone attack: The House has passed a resolution (H. Res. 240), sponsored by Rep. Brandon Williams, R-N.Y., to condemn Russia's recent destruction of a U.S. military drone said to have been flying in international airspace over the Black Sea. Williams said the resolution would "reassure our allies that we are committed to defend ourselves and our friends, and together, we will ensure the peace through deterrence in unity."

The vote, on April 17, was unanimous with 410 yeas. YEAS: LaTurner, R-KS (2nd); Alford, R-MO (4th); Burlison, R-MO (7th).

Regulating waterways veto override: The House has failed to override President Joe Biden's veto of a resolution (H.J. Res. 27), sponsored by Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., that would have voided an Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency rule issued this January that defines Waters of the United States. Such waters would be subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. Graves said the rule favored "radical environmental activists over America's families, small businesses, farmers, builders and property owners." A resolution opponent, Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., said: "This resolution represents a step backward for clean water, increases uncertainty for businesses, and doubles down on fighting and on chaos."

The vote, on April 18, was 227 yeas to 196 nays, with a two-thirds majority required. YEAS: LaTurner, R-KS (2nd); Alford, R-MO (4th); Burlison, R-MO (7th).

D.C. crime policies: The House has passed a bill (H.J. Res. 42), sponsored by Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., to disapprove of and void the Washington, D.C., Council's adoption of a law changing policing policies for D.C. police officers. Clyde said the action was necessary because "the D.C. council's misguided legislation has driven out men and women in blue who protect us, while disincentivizing individuals to join the force." An opponent, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said the council was only trying to "promote accountability for police officers who use excessive force or abuse their power, a goal that the vast majority of Americans share."

The vote, on April 19, was 229 yeas to 189 nays. YEAS: LaTurner, R-KS (2nd); Alford, R-MO (4th); Burlison, R-MO (7th).

Telecommunications security: The House has passed the Countering Untrusted Telecommunications Abroad Act (H.R. 1149), sponsored by Rep. Susan Wild, D-Pa., to require the State Department to assist telecommunications infrastructure installments that promote U.S. national security, and require other measures to address security risks from telecommunications. Wild said: "Securing these networks is imperative when it comes to national security and human rights, as well as for our economic security."

The vote, on April 19, was 410 yeas to 8 nays. YEAS: LaTurner, R-KS (2nd); Alford, R-MO (4th); Burlison, R-MO (7th).

Gender and school sports: The House has passed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act (H.R. 734), sponsored by Rep. Gregory W. Steube, R-Fla., to condition federal funding of school athletic programs on those schools not allowing people whose biological sex at birth is male to take part in female athletic programs. Steube said the bill "preserves women's sports and ensures fair competition for generations of women to come." An opponent, Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., said: "Congress has no business targeting transgender women and girls and imposing a nationwide ban on their participation in school sports."

The vote, on April 20, was 219 yeas to 203 nays. YEAS: LaTurner, R-KS (2nd); Alford, R-MO (4th); Burlison, R-MO (7th).

Military official: The Senate has confirmed the nomination of Radha Iyengar Plumb to be deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment. Plumb, currently chief of staff to Defense's deputy secretary, was formerly an executive at Google and at Facebook, and a national security staffer at several federal agencies.

The vote, on April 18, was 68 yeas to 30 nays. YEAS: Jerry Moran, R-KS. NAYS: Josh Hawley, R-MO; James Lankford, R-OK; Roger Marshall, R-KS; Eric Schmitt, R-MO.

Justice programs: The Senate has confirmed the nomination of Amy Lefkowitz Solomon to be the Justice Department's assistant attorney general for the Office of Justice Programs. A senior official at OJP since the start of the Biden administration, Solomon was in similar roles at OJP during the Obama administration as well. A supporter, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called Solomon "a devoted public servant whose policy expertise and commitment to the rule of law will serve the Justice Department and communities across America."

The vote, on April 18, was 59 yeas to 40 nays. YEAS: Moran, R-KS. NAYS: Hawley, R-MO; Lankford, R-OK; Marshall, R-KS; Schmitt, R-MO.

COVID-19 vaccines: The Senate has rejected an amendment sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to the Fire Grants and Safety Act (S. 870), that would have made grants to local fire departments contingent on those departments not having imposed COVID-19 vaccination requirements on their employees. Paul said: "Firemen and EMTs who chose not to be vaccinated were never a threat to anyone, never a threat to their communities. On the contrary, these firefighters served their communities bravely and made their neighbors safe." An opponent, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Mich., said: "This amendment would interfere with state and local governments' ability to determine health policies for their own employees and how to best keep their communities safe."

The vote, on April 18, was 45 yeas to 54 nays. YEAS: Moran, R-KS; Hawley, R-MO; Lankford, R-OK; Marshall, R-KS; Schmitt, R-MO.

Funding firefighter grants: The Senate has rejected an amendment sponsored by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., to the Fire Grants and Safety Act (S. 870) that would have used unspent COVID-19 relief funds to help cover the cost of the bill's firefighting grants program. Scott said that given the more than $31 trillion of government indebtedness, it would be financially prudent to redirect unobligated funds to support firefighters, rather than add to deficit spending. An amendment opponent, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Mich.., said: "Redistributing this funding could weaken our nation's ability to continue responding to and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic and would pull funds from a program that is supporting our communities, families and small businesses in important ways."

The vote, on April 18, was 47 yeas to 49 nays. YEAS: Moran, R-KS; Hawley, R-MO; Lankford, R-OK; Marshall, R-KS; Schmitt, R-MO.

Fighting fires: The Senate has passed the Fire Grants and Safety Act (S. 870), sponsored by Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Mich., to reauthorize through fiscal 2030 several federal firefighting and fire management programs. Peters said: "Fire departments depend on these programs to address staffing needs, replace outdated equipment, fund fire training and education programs, and invest in health screenings for firefighters in the line of duty."

The vote, on April 20, was 95 yeas to 2 nays. YEAS: Moran, R-KS; Hawley, R-MO; Lankford, R-OK; Marshall, R-KS; Schmitt, R-MO.

More:
Congressional votes of the week (April 14-20) | Four-States News ... - Joplin Globe

Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee has a habit of irritating fellow senators when it comes to his no votes on broadly popular legislation.

In 2022, he was the only senator who opposed efforts to create a national historic site at a former Japanese internment site in Colorado. And for every year except one since his 2010 election, Lee has voted against the annual defense authorization legislation, passed yearly with a veto-proof bipartisan majority. His criticism of Washingtons ongoing financial support for Ukraine since Russia invaded the country last year has also put him at odds with the Republican mainstream.

That obstinance typically doesnt win many friends in Washington. But it gave him a leading role as just one of just five GOP senators to speak at this weeks marquee Heritage Foundation conference marking the conservative think tanks 50th anniversary. Heritage has long played an outsized role in shaping Republican policy, but it has lately been distinguishing itself by staking out foreign policy positions at odds with the hawkish national security establishment.

Lees Thursday speech at the conference touted the Constitution as his guidepost on foreign and domestic policy, even if many of his foreign policy positions take him out of the conservative mainstream. He has argued that the executive branch has long overstepped its constitutional mandates on foreign policy issues and that Congress has not sufficiently stepped up to its role as the entity that can declare war.

The No. 1 priority for us was looking at something through the lens of the Constitution, so looking through the enumerated powers, figuring out if something was clearly delegated to the executive versus what was clearly a function of Congress, said Robby Smith Saunders, a former foreign policy advisor to Lee. A spokesperson for Lee did not respond to a request for comment.

What this amounts to in practice is a skepticism of American engagement in foreign conflicts and a broad desire to limit American spending abroad. Just dont call him an isolationist, his allies say.

I think hes definitely a restrainer. But I definitely would not ever characterize him as an isolationist, said Saunders.

Still, Lee has often found himself on the outside on major foreign policy issues, particularly on Ukraine. The American people need to speak up on this and make clear that while were concerned about Putin and Putins a bad guy, and I hope sincerely that hes stopped this cannot be ours to fight, nor can it be ours to fund alone, he said on Fox News in February, on the first anniversary of Russias invasion.

This sentiment echoed comments by former President Donald Trump, who has long argued against American support for Ukraine, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who said in March that getting involved in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not a vital national interest for the U.S. DeSantis later attempted to walk back his comments.

The critical responses from many Republicans indicate that among senior lawmakers, support for continued American military and financial assistance for Ukraine remains strong. Just because someone claims something doesnt mean it belongs to them. This is an invasion, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said in response to DeSantis remarks. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) called DeSantis comments disturbing.

While Lees foreign-policy worldview may have been relatively uncommon among U.S. senators when he was first elected a dozen years ago, his approach to the world has now gained several powerful ideological allies, Trump chief among them.

Hes been very consistent since he was first elected. What is different is that its no longer just him and Sen. Rand Paul [R-KY]. Its that theres more people that are willing to stand alongside him, particularly on the Republican side, and challenge the prevailing status quo around foreign policy, said Dan Caldwell, vice president at the Center for Renewing America, a conservative think tank closely aligned with Trump.

Trumps embrace of the America First banner was a turning point in moving the Republican line from internationalism to a more isolationist approach. Lee doesnt hew to all the same positions as Trump; for instance, where Trump embraced Saudi Arabia, Lee routinely criticizes Washingtons close relationship with Riyadh, citing Saudi human rights abuses. (Last year, he was the lone Republican to sign onto a letter with progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) questioning U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, citing their impact on civilian casualties in the war in Yemen.) But Lees overlap with the former president on many other issues is clear.

I think the future of Republican foreign policy will not deviate much from concepts and principles adopted by Trump, but Republicans will pursue them with a bit more finesse and nuance, said Bilal Saab, the director of the defense and security program at the Middle East Institute and a former senior advisor at the Department of Defense.

In the Senate, Lee has found allies in Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and J.D. Vance (R-OH), both of whom also spoke at the Heritage summit this week.

I think [L]ee feels like if were going to spend this money, we need a rationale for it, or else we shouldnt be spending it, said Victoria Coates, a former advisor to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), a close friend and ally of Lees.

This mentality has put Lee at odds with more traditionally hawkish Republicans, who think it is both morally right and in Americas national interest to get involved in some overseas conflicts.

The reality is that some investments abroad make Americans safer and more prosperous at home. That reality is not always evident to average Americans busy with their lives. Responsible leaders explain that what America does or does not do abroad matters at home, said Brad Bowman, senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which represents a more interventionist strain of conservative foreign policy. As Russia, China, and Iran cozy up with one another, it would be pretty foolish for America to neglect its closest friends and allies. We need them more than ever.

One notable exception to Lees approach to foreign spending is Israel. Unlike Rand Paul, an isolationist with whom Lee frequently partners, Lee has not criticized Washingtons $3.3 billion in annual security assistance to Israel. The reason may be that Lee views American support for Israel as strategic for the U.S. whereas security assistance to Ukraine does not necessarily benefit America, in Lees worldview.

I know in some ways, on a certain level, it seems like maybe an exception to his rules, said Saunders. I think for him, whats so important about Israel is the fact that theres a mutuality of benefit in terms of R&D, technological capabilities, cooperation when it comes to certain missile-defense programs and knowledge, and hes driven by his faith.

Lee traveled to Israel in 2018 for the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, along with Cruz and the more hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

If you had Mike Lee and Lindsey Graham at the same event, you probably have the full spectrum of conservative national security policy, said Coates. Lee earned the endorsement of the American Israel Public Affairs Committees political action committee in his 2022 reelection campaign.

The efficacy of the Lee approach, at least in the current Congress, is in question. Neither Congress nor President Joe Biden appears likely to make any major changes to Washingtons aid to Ukraine anytime soon. And while Lee has joined with some progressive Democrats to criticize American support for Saudi Arabia, they are in the minority.

Lee has also been one of the loudest voices seeking an end to the 2002 legislation authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, which he argues has been applied too broadly and for too long. The Senate voted to repeal the 2002 AUMF, and if the House follows, they will hand the Lee camp an ideological victory but the bills future in the House remains uncertain.

Nearly half of Americans (48%) support the U.S. sending weapons to Ukraine, while 29% oppose it, according to an Associated Press-NORC poll from February. But Americans are divided on whether the U.S. should directly send government funds to Ukraine. Support for both policies has decreased since last year, when the AP found that 60% of Americans supported sending weapons to Ukraine.

I think that more of the country is probably now in alignment with [Lees] position on issues than even when I worked for him five years ago, noted Saunders.

See more here:
Utah Sen. Mike Lee breaks with his party on foreign policy - Jewish Insider