webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Kirk, Mark Sen mod 15%

voted for W-M (in house)

---

lcv 6/15

==

early ~ trump?

==

4 gop green sen

https://thinkprogress.org/these-4-republican-senators-are-forming-a-group-to-tackle-climate-change-dc667e9f8eb5#.lb11aa1tc

---

apostate

Kirk was elected to the House in 2000. During his fifth term in November 2010, he won two concurrent elections: to finish the final months of former Senator Barack Obama's term and to serve the next six-year term. He was sworn in on November 29, 2010 and began a six-year Senate term on January 3, 2011.[4] In January 2012, Kirk suffered a stroke; almost a full year passed before he returned to his senatorial duties.[5] In 2016, Kirk ran for re-election to a second full term, but was defeated by Democrat Tammy Duckworth.[6] Kirk is the last Illinois Republican to have served in the U.S. Senate.

thom ref

kickass

How Citizens United Altered the Climate Debate

07.25.14

HOW CITIZENS UNITED ALTERED THE CLIMATE DEBATE
As delivered on the Senate floor

Thank you, Madam President, this is my seventy-fifth “Time to Wake Up” speech,something of a minor benchmark, I suppose. I come here urging my colleagues to wake up to the threat of climate change. I do this every week that we are in session, hoping that someday spark will hit tinder. But even as the evidence of climate change deepens, the dialogue here in Washington remains one-sided.

Climate change was once a bipartisan concern. In recent years, something changed. I think I know what changed, and I will get to that. But first, let’s reminisce about the bipartisanship.

If we take a look back, in this body we have Republican colleagues who once openly acknowledged the existence of carbon-driven climate change, and, and who called for real legislative action to cut carbon emissions. Imagine that. It wasn’t that long ago.

We have a former Republican presidential nominee,amongst us, who campaigned for the presidency on addressing climate change.

We have Republicans who have spoken favorably about charging a fee on carbon, including an original Republican cosponsor of a bipartisan Senate carbon fee bill.

We have a Republican colleague who cosponsored carbon fee legislation in the House, and another who voted for the Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill when he was in the House.

For years,for years there was a steady, healthy heartbeat of Republican support for major U.S. legislation to address carbon pollution. Let me be specific.

In 2003, Senator John McCain was the lead cosponsor of Democrat Joe Lieberman’s Climate Stewardship Act, which would have created a market-based emissions cap and trading program to reduce carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from the biggest U.S. sources.

Here is what Senator McCain said at the time: I’ll quote him, “While we cannot say with 100 percent confidence what will happen in the future, we do know the emission of greenhouse gases is not healthy for the environment. As many of the top scientists through the world have stated, the sooner we start to reduce these emissions, the better off we will be in the future.”

His Climate Stewardship Act actually got a vote. Imagine that!

And when it did not prevail, Senator McCain reintroduced the measure himself in the following Congress. Republican Senators Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island—my predecessor—were among that bill’s cosponsors.

Other Republicans got behind other cap-and-trade proposals: Senator Tom Carper’s “Clean Air Planning Act”, at one time or another, counted Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Senator Lyndsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator Susan Collins of Maine among its supporters.

In 2007, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe was a lead cosponsor of then-Senator Kerry’s “Global Warming Reduction Act.” Senators Murkowski and Stevens from Alaska, and Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, then a Republican, were original cosponsors of the Bingaman “Low Carbon Economy Act.” And that same year, Senator Alexander introduced the “Clean Air/Climate Change Act.” Each of these bills sought to reduce carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade mechanism. Said Senator Alexander, and I’ll quote him, “It is also time to acknowledge that climate change is real, human activity is a big part of the problem, and it is up to us to act.”- 2007

That bipartisan heartbeat remained strong in 2009. Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, while he served in the House of Representatives, was one of eight Republicans to vote for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade proposal.

In that same year, 2009, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, then representing Arizona in the House, was an original cosponsor of the “Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act,” to reduce payroll taxes for employers and employees in exchange for equal revenue from a carbon tax. On the House Floor, then-Representative Flake argued the virtues of this approach. Here’s what he said:

If we want to be honest about helping the environment, then just impose a carbon tax and make it revenue neutral, give commensurate tax relief on the other side. Myself and another Republican colleague have introduced that legislation to do just that. Let’s have an honest debate about whether or not we want to help the environment by actually having something that is revenue neutral where you tax consumption as opposed to income.

Was a good idea then, and it is still a good idea now. Those words were echoed that year in the Senate by Senator Collins, a lead cosponsor of the “Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act,” Senator Cantwell’s carbon fee bill. “In the United States alone,” said Senator Collins, “emissions of the primary greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have risen more than 20 percent since 1990. Clearly climate change is a daunting environmental challenge,she said, but we must develop solutions that do not impose a heavy burden on our economy, particularly during these difficult economic times.”

2009, Think of it—there was once, not too long ago, clear and forceful acknowledgement, from leading Republican voices, of the real danger posed by climate change, and of Congress’s responsibility to act.

[Heartbeat Graph]

So what happened? Why did this heartbeat of Republican climate action suddenly flatline?

Madam President, I believe we lost the ability to address climate change in a bipartisan way because of the evils of the Supreme Court’s Citizens Uniteddecision. Our present failure to address climate change is a symptom of things gone awry in our democracy due to Citizens United.That decision did not enhance speech in our democracy; it has allowed bullying, wealthy special interests to suppress real debate.

I’ve spoken before on the Senate Floor about the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision—one of the most disgraceful decisions by any Supreme Court; destined ultimately, I believe, to follow cases like Lochner v. New Yorkonto the ash heap of judicial infamy.

But we’re stuck with it for now.

In a nutshell, the Citizens United decision says this: corporations are people; money is speech; so there can be no limit to corporate money influencing American elections. If that doesn’t seem right, it’s because it’s not.

Phony and improper fact-finding by the five conservative activists on the Supreme Court concluded that corporate spending could not ever corrupt elections, just couldn’t do it.By some magic, it’s pure. That’s a bad enough finding on its face, but they also didn’t get that limitless, untraceable political money doesn’t have to be spent to damage our democracy. Unlimited corporate spending in politics can corrupt, not just through floods of anonymous attack advertisements; it can corrupt, secretly and more dangerously, through the mere threat of that spending, through private threats and promises. The presiding officer was the Attorney General of her state, and she well knows how much mischief can be done in backrooms by threats and promises, that’s what Attorney Generals see when they go out and investigate.

And as we’re evaluating the effect of Citizens United on our climate change debate, let’s remember one thing; a lot of this special interest money has been spent against Republicans. I’ve had Republican friends tell me, “what are you complaining about?” They’re spending more against us, than against you. There have been times when that has been true. When the Koch Brothers’ polluter money can come in and bombard you in a small primary election, that’s pretty scary. And when the paid-for right-wing attack machine can be cranked up against you in your Republican primary, that’s pretty scary, too. And what the polluters can do with political spending, they can threaten or promise to do, in ways that the public will never see or know—but the candidate will know. The candidate will know, for sure.

So, I wrote a “friend of the Court” brief to the Supreme Court with Senator McCain to highlight for the justices some of the failings and pitfalls of their shameful Citizens United decision. “The dominating influence of super PACs,” we wrote, “makes it all the easier for those seeking legislative favors and results to discreetly threaten such expenditures if Members of Congress do not accede to their demands.” I think we were right.

So how does this bear on climate change?

All that bipartisan activity I talked about preceded Citizens United. After that, polluter attacks funded by Citizens United money, and the threat of those polluter attacks,perhaps promises not to make those attacks, if you behave cast a dark shadow over Republicans who might work with Democrats on curbing carbon pollution. Tens, perhaps even hundreds of millions of dark-money dollars are being spent by polluters and their front organizations, and God only knows what private threats and promises have been made.

The timing is telling. Before Citizens United, there was an active heartbeat of Republican activity on climate change. Since then, the evidence has only become stronger. But after Citizens United uncorked all that big, dark money, and allowed it to cast its bullying shadow of intimidation over our democracy, Republicans—other than those few who parrot the polluter party line that climate change is just a big old hoax— they have all walked back from any major climate legislation.

We have Senators here who represent historic native villages, now washing into the sea and needing relocation because of climate change and sea-level rise. We have Senators who represent great American coastal cities, now overwashed by high tides because of climate change. We have Senators representing states swept by drought and wildfire. We have Senators whose home-state forests—by the hundreds of square miles—are being killed by the marauding pine beetle. We have Senators whose home states’ glaciers are disappearing before their very eyes. We have Senators whose states are having to raise offshore bridges and highways before rising seas. We have Senators whose emblematic home state species are dying off, like the New Hampshire moose, for instance swarmed by ticks, by the tens of thousands that snows no longer kill.

Yet almost none will work on a major climate bill. It’s not safe to, ever since Citizens United allowed the bullying, polluting special interests to bombard our elections, and threaten and promise to bombard our elections, with their attack ads.

Well, despite all the dark money, despite the threats and intimidation, I still believe this can be a courageous time. We simply need conscientious Republicans and Democrats to work together, in good faith, on a common platform of facts and common sense, to protect the American people and the American economy from the looming effects of climate change in our atmosphere, on our lands, in our oceans. We simply need to shed the shackles of corrupting influence and rise to our duty.

In courageous times, Americans have done far more than that. It’s not asking much to ask this generation to stand up to a pack polluters, just because they have big checkbooks. In previous generations, Americans have put at risk their very lives, fortunes and sacred honor—to serve the higher interests of this great republic. We know it can be done, because it’s been done.

We do not have to be the generation that failed at our duty. We are headed down a road to infamy now, but it doesn’t have to be that way. We can leave a legacy that will echo down the corridors of history, so that those who follow us will be proud of our efforts. But sitting here, doing nothing, yielding to the special-interest bullies and their Citizens United money, pretending the problem isn’t real, that won’t accomplish that.

As I have said before seventy-four times, and as I say tonight for the seventy-fifth time, it is time for us to wake up.

I yield the floor. I thank the presiding officer.

---

Former Sen. Mark Kirk speaks publicly for first time in years - CBS Chicago

---

also bgr

Former Sen. Mark Kirk and old flame retroactively register as lobbyists

Posted by Keturah Hetrick on Sept. 28, 2020

Ex-Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and his one-time girlfriend quietly registered as first-time lobbyists for work they began a year ago.

Kirk and Dodie McCracken started work last October on behalf of MP Materials. The rare-earth-materials mining company hired the pair to lobby on "rare earth materials supply chain and critical supply chain issues," according to a disclosure filed last week. The filing does not indicate whether or not the contract is still active.

McCracken made headlines in 2012, when the senator's ex-wife accused Kirk of hiding $143,000 in campaign payments to McCracken, then his girlfriend. The FEC later decided that the payments did not run afoul of the law, according to the Chicago Tribune. In addition to her apparent campaign work, McCracken served as district director and press secretary to then-Rep. Kirk from 2001-2003.

She and the senator are working through Kirk Global Advisors, which Kirk established after losing his 2016 reelection bid. McCracken's role with the firm, as well as her current relationship to Kirk, are unclear.

EB

While in Congress, Kirk developed a reputation as a moderate Republican. Unlike many in his party, he supported abortion rights, marriage equality, and gun-control legislation. However, on fiscal matters he generally adopted a more-conservative stance. He opposed efforts to raise the minimum wage, and he pushed for tax cuts. Kirk also was active in efforts to protect the Great Lakes.

In 2016 Kirk faced a tough reelection bid, facing off against Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth, a veteran of the Iraq War who had lost both legs there. His campaign struggled to gain momentum as he lost the support of some Republicans for his sharp criticism of the party’s presidential candidate, Donald Trump. Then, just days before the election, Kirk faced a backlash after seeming to question during a debate both Duckworth’s heritage as well as her family’s military service. In the November election, Kirk was easily defeated, and he left office in 2017.

http://www.ecowatch.com/voter-guide-climate-change-2012756804.html

...

Beyond the presidential race, there are profound choices to make up-and-down the ballot between climate disasters and climate champions, and voters deserve to know the difference there too.

Take North Carolina, for example. Republican Sen. Richard Burr is another climate denier, claiming falsely that he doesn't "think science can prove" climate change.

Burr, we have a few hundred scientific studies you should take a look. Or you could just refer to NASA, which the Republican Party went out of their way to celebrate at their most recent convention. Frankly, it's no surprise that a denier like Burr also has no interest in a landmark policy like the Clean Power Plan—the EPA's first ever effort to cut carbon pollution from power plants while growing our clean energy economy.

On the other hand, Burr's opponent Deborah Ross strongly supported legislation that spurred the growth of clean energy jobs in North Carolina, while opposing environmentally harmful fracking. She's supported policies to protect clean air and clean water while opposing tax breaks for polluters. So it's clear all around that right now Congress desperately needs more climate and environmental champions like Deborah Ross in the Senate, and fewer climate deniers like Richard Burr.

The same story repeats itself in top Senate races in the country, where climate champions like Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Jason Kander (D-Mo.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) face climate disasters like Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Darryl Glenn (R-Colo.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Joe Heck (R-Nev.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)....

==

===

Emergency Update:The Koch brothers have just dropped a new $2 million ad buy attacking Katie McGinty. 

What’s worse, so far in Pennsylvania Koch brothers-backed group Americans for Prosperity has knocked on more than 21,000 doors and made nearly 500,000 phone calls to re-elect climate denier Pat Toomey. 

And McGinty isn’t their only target. The Koch group Freedom Partners Action Fund has spent $24 million so far trying to protect the climate-denying majority in the Senate. They’re making huge investments against Ted Strickland in Ohio and Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada, as well. And their friends at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have spent hundreds of thousands to “greenwash” Senator Mark Kirk’s record in his campaign against climate champion and veteran Tammy Duckworth in Illinois.  8/16

---

==

180 on cpp?

(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Senate passed two resolutions on Tuesday to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing itsClean Power Plan (CPP), the centerpiece of President Obama’s “historic” attempt to reduce carbon emissions 32 percent by 2030.

Senate Joint Resolution 23, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) with 47 co-sponsors, stated that “Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ‘Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units’”.

The Senate also passed a resolution of disapproval sponsored by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) stating that the CPP “shall have no force or effect.” The House is expected to pass a similar measure.

The resolutions, which were both approved 52 to 46, were introduced under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to disapprove regulations that have an economic impact of more than $100 million.

Three Democratic senators - Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), and Joe Manchin (WV) - joined the Republican majority in support of the resolutions.

Three Republican senators - Kelly Ayotte (NH), Susan Collins (ME) andMark Kirk (IL) - voted against them.

Republican presidential candidates Lindsey Graham (SC) and Marco Rubio (FL) did not vote.

==

lcv?

That’s exactly what we’re about to do to Mark Kirk. Historically, he’s been a swing vote on environmental issues, but just last week he sided with polluters on three critical votes aimed at blocking the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. Congress is in recess this week — he’ll be at home, hearing from his constituents before returning for a few more weeks of votes.We’re going to make he knows how badly he screwed up with a massive advertising campaign in Illinois calling him out on his votes. 

That simply wouldn’t be possible without support from LCV members. Since last week,2,500 people have pitched in to our campaign. Thanks to LCV supporters we were able to send in activists from all over the country to meet with legislators ahead of the vote. We even got four Republicans on our side. 

Your support has also allowed us to go toe-to-toe with groups like ALEC. They’ve been going state to state, attempting to shred environmental protections through their ”model” legislation. As of this month, ALEC and the coal industry have been behind anti-EPA legislation in 22 states — and they've failed 21 times. 

==

http://www.globalpossibilities.org/senate-rejects-effort-to-teach-kids-about-climate-change-in-schools/

 ==

won senate 2010

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk

---

Really only one political force could stop a climate bill in 2010, the same force that has impeded action for more than a decade — the hard-core antiscience crowd that dominates much of conservative politics these days and that demagogues against even the most modest efforts to promote clean energy and reduce pollution.  Indeed, they are pushing hard to punish any Republican who contemplates actually addressing the gravest threat to the health and well-being of our children and grandchildren.  For instance,Republican National Chairman Michael Steele withdrew his endorsement for Rep. Mark Kirk in the Illinois Senate race in large part because he was one of the eight House Republicans to vote for the House climate bill (see my blog post, “Honey, I shrunk the GOP, Part 3“).

Since Crist faces a right wing challenger in the Florida Senate primary, he has moved away from his strong support for climate action.  Pawlenty still dreams of being on the national ticket in 2012, so he too has abandoned his previous support for strong climate action (see “Pawlenty completes climate science flip flop, after flip flopping on support for bipartisan climate action“)....http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/01/10/205245/will-antiscience-ideologues-be-able-to-kill-the-bipartisan-climate-and-clean-energy-jobs-bill/

---

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk  stub ish

Coalitions and caucuses

Affiliations

More background data

Wikipedia also has an article on Mark Kirk. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL.

==

WIKI

Mark KirkMark Kirk

United States Senator

from Illinois

United States Senator

from Illinois

IncumbentIncumbent

Assumed office

November 29, 2010

Serving with Dick Durbin

Assumed office

November 29, 2010

Serving with Dick Durbin

Preceded byRoland Burris

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives

from Illinois's 10th district

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives

from Illinois's 10th district

In office

January 3, 2001 – November 29, 2010

In office

January 3, 2001 – November 29, 2010

Preceded byJohn Porter
Succeeded byRobert Dold
Personal detailsPersonal details
Born

Mark Steven Kirk

September 15, 1959 (age 52)

Champaign, Illinois

Political partyRepublican
Spouse(s)Kimberly Vertolli (2001–2009; divorced)[1]
ResidenceHighland Park, Illinois[2]
Alma mater

Cornell University (B.A.)

London School of Economics

Georgetown University Law Center (J.D.)

OccupationAttorney, Commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve
ReligionUnited Church of Christ[3]
WebsiteOfficial website
Military serviceMilitary service
Service/branch United States Navy
Years of service1989–present
Rank Commander
UnitU.S. Navy Reserve

Mark Steven Kirk (born September 15, 1959) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and a member of the Republican Party. Previously, Kirk was a member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Illinois's 10th congressional district.

Born in Champaign, Illinois, he graduated from Cornell University, London School of Economics, and Georgetown University Law Center. He practiced law throughout the 1980s and 1990s. He joined the United States Navy Reserve in 1989 and was recalled to active duty for the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. He participated in Operation Northern Watch in Iraq the following year. He remains a member of the Navy Reserve, now holding the rank of Commander.

Kirk was elected to the House in 2000. During his fifth term in November 2010 he won a special election to finish the final months of former Senator Barack Obama's term and he began a six-year Senate term in January 2011.

Kirk was elected to the House in 2000. During his fifth term in November 2010, he won two concurrent elections: to finish the final months of former Senator Barack Obama's term and to serve the next six-year term. He was sworn in on November 29, 2010 and began a six-year Senate term on January 3, 2011.[4] In January 2012, Kirk suffered a stroke; almost a full year passed before he returned to his senatorial duties.[5] In 2016, Kirk ran for re-election to a second full term, but was defeated by Democrat Tammy Duckworth.[6] Kirk is the last Illinois Republican to have served in the U.S. Senate.

Contents [hide]

[edit] Early life and education

Mark Kirk was born in Champaign, Illinois, the son of Judith Ann (née Brady) and Francis Gabriel "Frank" Kirk.[4][5][6] After graduating from New Trier East High School in 1977 he attended Cornell University, where he graduated cum laude with a B.A. in History.[7] Kirk later obtained a masters degree from the London School of Economics and a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from Georgetown University Law Center.[8][9]

[edit] Teaching career

While Kirk was an undergraduate student at Cornell University he held a work study job supervising a play group at the Forest Home Chapel nursery school and after getting his masters degree Kirk taught for one year at a private school in London.[10][11] He later stated in speeches and interviews that he had been a nursery and middle school teacher. For example, Kirk claimed in a speech to the Illinois Education Association, "As a former nursery school and middle school teacher, I know some of what it takes to bring order to class." However, a member of the Forest Home Chapel said, "He was never, ever considered a teacher [at the nursery school]."[10]

In discussing problems in the educational system early in his congressional career, Kirk addressed the brevity of his teaching career: “I did leave the teaching profession, but if we had addressed some of the teacher development issues, which I want to raise with you, I might have stayed.”[10][12]

[edit] Military service

Kirk was commissioned as an intelligence officer in the United States Navy Reserve in 1989.[9]

In 1999 Kirk was recalled to active duty in Operation Allied Force for the bombing of Yugoslavia. He served from to April 10 to June 6, 1999 as the intelligence officer of VAQ-209.[13] VAQ-209 was combined with three other EA-6B squadrons to form an ad hoc unit called Electronic Attack Wing Aviano, Italy. VAQ-140 had tactical command of the combined unit.[14] In May, 2000, the National Military Intelligence Association bestowed the organization's Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Award to Intelligence Division Electronic Attack Wing Aviano, Italy.[15]

In March and April, 2000 Kirk trained with an EC-130 squadron based in Turkey. Kirk took a flight over Iraq as part of Operation Northern Watch, which enforced a no fly zone over the northern section of Iraq.[16]

Kirk has served three, two-week reserve deployments in Afghanistan, with the latest concluding in September 2011.[17]

[edit] Awards

During his military career, Kirk has been awarded the following medals: the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, Navy Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, as well as the Joint Meritorious Unit Award, the Navy Unit Commendation, and the Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation. He continues his service in the Navy Reserve holding the rank of Commander.[18]

Kirk corrected claims he had made about being awarded "Navy Intelligence Officer of the Year" after it was brought to the media's attention by his Democratic opponent, Alexi Giannoulias.[19] In a 2002 House committee hearing recorded by C-Span, Kirk said, "I was the Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year," an achievement he said gave him special qualifications to discuss national security spending.[18] However, in May 2010, the Washington Post reported that Kirk's claim to having been named the Navy's “Intelligence Officer of the Year” was erroneous.[20] The National Military Intelligence Association gave the Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Award to the entire Intelligence Division Electronic Attack Wing at Aviano.[18] Kirk was the lead intelligence officer for VAQ-209, one of the four squadrons assigned to the Electronic Attack Wing. VAQ-140 had tactical command.[14] Kirk later apologized for this and other errors, including claims of having been fired upon during an aerial reconnaissance mission in Iraq, about which there is no official record, and of having participated in Operation Desert Storm when in fact he did not.[21]

On June 7, 2010, Medal of Honor recipient and advocate of Veteran's benefits, Allen Lynch, deemed Mark Kirk's apologies adequate, and further commented: “To me, in my opinion, it's just a bunch of nit picking. Plus, he's done a christ ton for veterans. So I think this is being blown way out of proportion".[22]

[edit] Service under fire

Controversy regarding Kirk's military record continued as other statements surfaced, such as Kirk stating “the last time I was in Iraq I was in uniform, flying at 20,000 feet, and the Iraqi Air Defense network was shooting at us.” Kirk has since clarified his previous statements, admitting that he was never fired on as he flew over Iraq or Kosovo.[23] “I simply misremembered [sic] it wrong,” he told The Chicago Sun-Times, referring to his military record.[24]

[edit] Military politicking

On December 18, 2009, Undersecretary of Defense Gail H. McGinn noted in a memo that Kirk had on two previous active duty periods engaged in politicking—violation of military policy by participating in political activities while on active duty, per Department of Defense regulations. On one occasion Congressman Kirk commented on Rod Blagojevich's arrest and posted a tweet while on duty with the Navy in Afghanistan.[25] According to the Pentagon, Kirk was required to sign a statement acknowledging he knew the rules and wouldn't break them again.[26]

[edit] Early political career

Kirk worked on the staff of John Porter, the former holder of Illinois’s 10th congressional district. From 1991 to 1993, Kirk was the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in the U.S. State Department. Kirk was an attorney for Baker & McKenzie from 1993 to 1995. In 1995, Kirk was named as a counsel to the House International Relations Committee. He remained counsel to the House International Relations Committee until 1999.[9]

[edit] U.S. House of Representatives

[edit] Elections

Kirk was originally elected in 2000 with 51%. He won re-election with comfortable margins in 2002 and 2004. He defeated Dan Seals by a five point margin in 2006, and defeated him again by the same exact margin in a rematch in 2008.

[edit] Tenure

Kirk was a member of the House Iran Working Group, the founder and co-chair of the House U.S.-China Working Group,[27] the co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues,[9] the co-chair of the Albanian Issues Caucus in ex Yugoslavia,[28] and a member of the GOP Tuesday Group.[29] During his House tenure, he was a member of the House Appropriations Committee.[30]

During his tenure in the House, Kirk voted for the Waxman-Markey "Cap-and-Trade" bill.[31][32]

[edit] Committee assignments

Source: Appropriations subcommittees

[edit] Immigration

Kirk attracted controversy by stating that he was not opposed if the immigration process in the United States discriminates against Arab males from certain countries. He stated, "I’m OK with discrimination against young Arab males from terrorist-producing states. I’m OK with that."[33]

[edit] U.S. Senate

[edit] 2010 election

On July 20, 2009, Kirk announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate election for the seat held by Roland Burris, which had been held by Barack Obama before his election as president. On February 2, 2010, Kirk won the Republican primary with 56.6 percent of the vote; no other candidate had as much as 20 percent.[34] He ran against Democratic nominee Alexi Giannoulias, Green Party nominee LeAlan Jones, and Libertarian nominee Mike Labno. 

During the Illinois U.S. Senate election campaign in 2010, Kirk and Giannoulias were in a hotly contested debate. Kirk (R) defeated Giannoulias in the election for the full 6-year term, getting 48% to Giannoulias's 46%. Kirk changed his position on Cap and Trade legislation during the campaign saying he voted for it "because it was in the narrow interests of my Congressional district," but that as a representative of the entire state of Illinois, "I will vote No on that bill.”[35]

[edit] Tenure

On December 18, 2010, Kirk voted in favor of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.[36] He was one of only two Republicans to oppose legislation to detain American citizens indefinitely.[37] Kirk sits at the Senate's coveted candy desk.[38]

[edit] Caucus memberships

[edit] Committee Assignments

Attachments