A Quote by Gabrielle Giffords

Moments ago, the U.S. Senate decided to do the unthinkable about gun violence - nothing at all. Over two years ago, when I was shot point-blank in the head, the U.S. Senate chose to do nothing. Four months ago, 20 first-graders lost their lives in a brutal attack on their school, and the U.S. Senate chose to do nothing. It's clear to me that if members of the U.S. Senate refuse to change the laws to reduce gun violence, then we need to change the members of the U.S. Senate.
I'm one of the only members of the U.S. Senate who isn't a millionaire. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a millionaire. But there ought to be a little economic diversity in the Senate and I try to provide it.
I understand the politics of the situation, I think that many Republican members of the senate believe that,get out the vote move. They can indicate that they're strong for their base. But the Constitution's pretty clear. The president Donald Trump has to nominate someone. The senate can choose to disapprove. There's nothing in their Constitution that says the grounds upon which they must vote. But to refuse even to meet with the individual, or to have the process go forward, that's just pure politics.
He's a nice guy who will never change the Senate. He is the Senate. Eighteen years in politics, and he's got two cousins who are senators, too. Mark Udall's dad even ran for president.
The chaplain of the Senate does not pray for the Senate. He watches the Senate and prays for the country.
Unfortunately, the Senate Democrats have become an extreme party. They have become a party that has abdicated their responsibilities. Under Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats, we have a do-nothing Senate.
At first I intended to become a student of the Senate rules and I did learn much about them, but I soon found that the Senate hadbut one fixed rule, subject to exceptions of course, which was to the effect that the Senate would do anything it wanted to do whenever it wanted to do it.
Bob Torricelli, Democrat member of the Senate, was basically about to be thrown out of office on corruption charges, and he went to the floor of the Senate to deny everything. And we juxtaposed his denials with an attorney from someone in an action against Torricelli who was listing all of the gifts and all the bribes that Torricelli had been given and offered in exchange for policy considerations on the Senate floor. So he's on the Senate floor denying it.
When it comes to Senate reform, in general, I've always been a believer in an elected Senate and would hope to achieve aspects of Senate reform.
When you work in the United States Senate, and you are around people of all different ideas and beliefs, you realize that what our Founding Fathers did that was so genius, is that they made the Senate the place where compromises are supposed to happen because of the makeup of the Senate.
The bill then says if the Senate does not act, then H.R. 1 (the House-passed bill that cuts $61 billion) will be the law of the land. In addition to that, it says that if all else fails, and the Senate brings about a shutdown, then members should not get their pay.
The majority in the Senate is prepared to restore the Senate's traditions and precedents to ensure that regardless of party, any president's judicial nominees, after full and fair debate, receive a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
What I find most appalling is the Senate calls it a qualified blind trust when it's not blind. Since the Senate says it's OK, the Senate has made it a political question. It's up to the voter. But there's no doubt it's a conflict of interest.
You now have six-year campaigns for the Senate - you never stop running. It's not uncommon for a member of the Senate to have a fundraising breakfast, a fundraising lunch and a fundraising dinner, and then when the Senate breaks for the week to go home, more fundraisers. And that's driven by the cost of campaigning.
It seems like basic principle to me. According to Senate ethics rules, Members of the U.S. Senate, and their families, cannot benefit personally and financially from legislative decisions they make. Senator Feinstein, apparently, either doesn't agree with this principle, or she has chosen to ignore it.
There's a statement from several members of the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, including the Democratic leader, Charles Schumer; John McCain, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee; and Lindsey Graham, also a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They write that recent reports of Russian interference in our elections should alarm every American. They say Democrats and Republicans must work together to investigate this.
I was appointed to the Senate, and it has been my job to serve in the Senate and then to earn the vote of Minnesotans.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!