The 1990 Budget Enforcement Act requires financial offsets for tax cuts or spending increases (both of which drain revenue from the U.S. Treasury). The budget rules-which are known as pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO-trigger automatic spending cuts to offset revenue losses from previously enacted legislation unless congressional appropriators (those lawmakers who serve on the appropriations committee) waive the PAYGO requirement. In 2002, however, appropriators failed to waive the PAYGO rules which required GOP leaders to demand roll call votes to insure that automatic spending cuts were not triggered. During debate on a bill to waive the PAYGO requirement, Congressman Moore (D-KS) motioned to recommit the bill to committee with instructions that revenue losses caused by GOP-enacted tax cuts for wealthy individuals are offset by spending cuts in 2002 and 2003. Progressives supported the motion to recommit-which is one of the few procedural rights afforded to opponents of legislation-as a way to guard against future budget deficits and insure that the GOP is held responsible for revenue losses to the Treasury. The motion to recommit was defeated on a nearly party-line vote of 187-201.

Prior to House floor consideration of legislation, a rule must be passed to set parameters on debate. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership. On this vote, Republicans sought passage of a rule governing debate on the bankruptcy reform conference report (a conference report, which is drafted by conference committees for the purpose of reconciling differences between House and Senate-passed bills, is the final version of legislation). Bankruptcy reforms intending to make it more difficult for individuals to file for bankruptcy and absolve their debts have been on the congressional agenda since 1999; the legislation, however, has thus far been unable to pass the House and Senate and obtain a presidential signature. In 2002, debate centered on a controversial provision which would have prevented abortion protesters from declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying court-ordered fines. In recent years, a few anti-abortion activists have torched abortion clinics and murdered doctors who perform the medical procedure; Progressives argued that those individuals should be penalized to the full extent of the law. In the view of Progressives, bankruptcy laws should not enable individuals who have been convicted of damaging abortion clinics or killing doctors from filing for bankruptcy to avoid the financial punishments for their actions. In a rare defeat for the GOP leadership, the rule governing debate on the bankruptcy reform conference report was rejected 172-243.

The Bush administration responded to the terrorist attacks on September 11th by proposing a dramatic restructuring of the federal government to create a new Department of Homeland Security. But with some suggestions that administration missteps had facilitated the terrorist attacks, Progressives and Democrats in general wanted to establish an investigation into the matter. Roemer (D-IN) moved to recommit (send back) the bill that created the new department to its committee with instructions that a National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States be added. The commission would look into security lapses before September 11th, among other matters. House Republicans were anxious to save the administration from such scrutiny, just as Progressives wanted to turn up the heat. On an almost perfect party-line vote, the motion to add the commission to the bill failed, 203-215.

The Bush administration was determined to keep government spending low, even in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Republicans in the House followed that lead, and refused to compromise with the Democrats in control of the Senate on overall spending levels. Instead, they proposed a series of stopgap spending measures-"continuing resolutions," or "CRs"-that kept the government funded at fiscal 2002 levels on a temporary basis. The Republicans had taken back the Senate in the November 2002 elections but they would not take formal control of the body until January, so this latest CR kept the government funded until then. Obey (D-WI) moved to recommit (send back) this CR to its committee to add spending for veterans' health care, anti-bioterrorism programs, emergency preparedness, and oversight of corporate malfeasance. Progressives favored Obey's motion because they felt these programs needed extra funding. But enough Republicans stood by the administration to make a Progressive victory impossible. The motion failed, 196-216.

Republicans and Democrats had been unable to come to an agreement about spending for 2003. The Bush administration and its allies in Congress were determined to stick to a low spending number that Progressives and Democrats in general could not accept. To circumvent this disagreement and avoid any compromise, House Republicans proposed a temporary spending bill ("continuing resolution," or CR) to fund the government at the previous year's levels. In the House, most bills come with a set of instructions for the conduct of debate, normally referred to as the "rule." If the rule does not pass, the bill is effectively rejected. Progressives opposed the Republicans' CR because they wanted to force the Republicans to compromise on their lower spending goals. As a result, Progressives also opposed the bill's rule. However, their opposition was not enough and the rule passed, 215-189.

The Republicans in control of the House and the Democrats in control of the Senate were unable to agree on spending for fiscal 2003. Republicans had committed themselves to White House spending restrictions that Progressives and Democrats in general felt were inadequate given the weakening economy and the need for stronger homeland security. To skirt around the impasse, House Republicans proposed a series of stopgap measures-"continuing resolutions" or "CRs"-to keep the government funded at the previous year's levels for short periods of time. Republicans hoped to make it past the November elections without compromise, because if they took back the Senate in those elections they would be able to pass their spending plan with much less difficulty. The CR at issue here maintained funding for about a month-enough time to postpone the issue until after the elections in November. Progressives wanted to force Republicans to compromise now, so they wanted to press the issue as often as possible. They favored an Obey (D-WI) motion to recommit (send back) the CR to its committee with instructions that its duration be reduced to five days. However, Republican opposition to this idea was strong, and motion was rejected 194-210.

Throughout 2002, the Republican House and the Democratic Senate could not agree on government spending for the coming fiscal year. Republicans wanted to stay close to the Bush administration's lower spending totals, while Progressives and Democrats in general felt that the softening economy and the need for greater homeland security measures meant it was no time to worry about funding the government too generously. With no progress in reaching a compromise between the House and Senate, House Republicans proposed a series of temporary stopgap spending measures that would keep the government funded at the previous year's levels. Republicans hoped to make it past the November elections without compromise, because if they took back the Senate in those elections they would be able to pass their spending plan with much less difficulty. Progressives opposed these "continuing resolutions" (CRs) because they wanted to force House Republicans to compromise on their spending limits. That meant Progressives also opposed each CRs "rule": the set of instructions for the conduct of debate that must be passed separately before the bill itself could be considered. The CR at issue here was no exception. Progressives voted "no" on its rule, but the rule passed with strong Republican support 206-193.

With the economy weakening and homeland security becoming a top priority, Progressives felt it was important to provide adequate funding for a wide range of government programs. But throughout 2002, they and Democrats in general fought with Republicans over spending levels. Republicans followed the lead of the White House and insisted on low spending totals. The gridlock that followed left the government without money for the coming year. House Republicans proposed a series of "continuing resolutions" (CRs) that temporarily kept the government funded at the previous year's levels. Republicans hoped to make it past the November elections without compromise, because if they took back the Senate in those elections they would be able to pass their spending plan with much less difficulty. Like most bills in the House, the CR at issue here came with a "rule" that dictated the conduct of debate; the rule had to be passed in order for the CR to be considered, so most opponents of the bill voted against the rule as well. This is why Progressives voted against the rule: they did not want to see the issue voted on because they believed the underlying CR gave Republicans a way to avoid compromise on the real spending bills. They also voted "no" on a Hastings (R-WA) motion to order the previous question-a way of cutting of debate on the rule and calling it up for a vote-because they opposed the bill and opposed the rule that would be voted on if the motion passed. However, the motion for the previous question received the necessary majority support 209- 193.

Throughout 2002, Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House had been unable to agree on spending bills to fund most of the federal government. Progressives and Democrats in general felt the spending levels proposed by the Republicans were far too low, especially given the fragile state of the economy and the threat of future terrorist attacks. Without a compromise, Republicans in the House proposed a series of "continuing resolutions" (CRs)-temporary measures to keep the government running at the previous year's spending levels. Republicans used the CRs to avoid compromise until at least the November elections. They hoped to take back the Senate in those elections, after which their spending plan would have much better chance of passage. Progressives, on the other hand, wanted to force Republicans to confront the CRs as often as possible as a way to highlight the impasse and hopefully peel off some Republican votes. Toward that end, Obey moved to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that the length of the CR be shortened from its current eight days to two. Progressives voted for this motion, but with united Republican opposition they did not have the votes to prevail. The motion was rejected 202-214.

The Bush administration and its allies in Congress were determined to keep government spending low, even in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks and the softening economy. By contrast, Progressives and Democrats in general felt the terrorist attacks and the state of the economy only proved that more funding was necessary for a wide range of programs. The result was an impasse: the Democratic Senate and the Republican House could not agree on spending bills. Instead of compromising on the issue, House Republicans proposed a series of "continuing resolutions" (CRs) that funded the government at the previous year's levels for short periods of time-the CR at issue here lasted only eight days. The Republicans' goal was to make it past the November elections; if they could took back the Senate in those elections, their spending plan would have much better chance of passage. In the House, most bills are accompanied by a "rule": a set of instructions that dictate the conduct of debate for that bill only. Opponents of a bill will often oppose the rule as well because if the rule fails, the bill usually dies. Progressives opposed the Republicans' CR, so they opposed the CR's rule. But Republicans in the House were united on the matter, and that made it difficult to bring the rule down. It passed 225-193.

During debate on a bill that would grant congressional approval for President Bush to launch a military campaign against Iraq, Congressman Spratt (D-SC) proposed an amendment which would have compelled the U.S. military to support any new United Nations Security Council resolution ordering the elimination of Iraq's weapons program. The amendment would have also required the president to obtain congressional approval before using military force against Iraq if a United Nations resolution which authorized force was not obtained. Progressives supported Spratt's measure as a way to insure that Congress has the final word in declaring war (the Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to declare war). Moreover, Progressives argued that U.S. military action without U.N. support would undermine U.S. support in the international arena and serve to isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world. The Spratt amendment was rejected by a 155- 270 vote margin.

Several House-passed bills were not considered by the Senate in 2002. In an effort to chastise the Senate for its inaction on those matters, House GOP leaders drafted several "sense of the House" resolutions which stated that Congress (i.e. the Senate) should adopt those House-passed bills and allow President Bush to sign those measures into law (in contrast to other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law). To counter the GOP's "blamegame" legislative strategy, House Democrats proposed several resolutions of their own to admonish the House for its inaction on Senate-passed legislation. One such resolution offered by Congressman Carson (D-IN) would have expressed the sense of the House that Congress should complete its work on the 2003 Transportation Department spending bill and include at least $1.2 billion for Amtrak. Progressives supported the Carson measure as a way to insure that funding for the nation's transportation infrastructure is not compromised by end-of-session delays in passing the spending bill. The subject of this vote was a motion by Congressman Rogers (R-MI) to table (or strike down) the Carson resolution. Progressives voted against the tabling motion but the Carson measure was struck down on a straight party-line vote of 203- 192.

In 2002, the Senate failed to act on several House-passed bills. In an effort to castigate the Senate for its inaction, House GOP leaders drafted several "sense of the House" resolutions which stated that Congress (i.e. the Senate) should adopt those House-passed bills to allow President Bush to sign those measures into law (in contrast to other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law). To counter the GOP's "blame-game" legislative strategy, House Democrats proposed several resolutions of their own to admonish the House for its inaction on Senatepassed legislation. On this vote, Congressman Hulshof (R-MO) made a motion to table (or strike down) a sense of the House resolution proposed by Congressman Farr (D-CA). The Farr resolution would have urged Congress to repeal spending cuts for hospitals that serve low-income patients. In the view of Progressives, federal funding for hospitals should not be conditional on patient incomes. Hospitals in low income areas, Progressives argued, should receive comparable funding to hospitals that serve wealthy individuals. In other words, proper medical care should be available to all citizens regardless of their income. The motion to strike down the Farr resolution was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 206-192.

For legislation to pass Congress, a bill must be adopted by the House and Senate in an identical form. Frequently, however, legislation is passed by one legislative body but not the other; in those cases, the measure is defeated for that congressional session. In an effort to chastise the Senate for its inaction on several House-passed bills, House GOP leaders drafted several "sense of the House" resolutions which stated that Congress (i.e. the Senate) should act on those House-passed bills. In contrast to other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law. To counter the GOP's "blame-game" legislative strategy, Democrats proposed several resolutions of their own to admonish the House for inaction on Senate-passed legislation. On this vote, Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-WI) motioned to table (or strike down) a sense of the House resolution proposed by Congressman Holden (D-PA). The Holden resolution would have urged the House to extend a farm bankruptcy program to include bankruptcy protections for family fishermen. Progressives supported the Holden resolution because, in their view, fishermen should be offered the same bankruptcy protections that small farmers currently enjoy; success in both fishing and farming, they argued, depends heavily upon seasonal weather conditions and other unforeseeable factors that farmers and fisherman cannot control. The motion to strike down the Holden resolution was passed on a 214-202 vote.

Non-profit organizations that do not engage in political activity (such as raising money on behalf of candidates) are exempt from paying taxes; the relevant section of the tax code is 501(c)(3). Congressman Herger (R-CA) introduced legislation in the House which would change the tax code to allow religiously affiliated groups to carry out political campaign activities and still maintain their tax exempt status so long as their campaign activities were not a "substantial part" of their work. Progressives opposed the bill because, in their view, religious groups should not receive favorable treatment vis-à-vis other non-profits (such as children's groups and humanitarian aid organizations). Moreover, Progressives argued, the bill would erode the constitutional separation of church and state; tax-free donations to the church, in their view, should not be used for partisan political purposes. A two-thirds majority vote was required to suspend House rules and allow for consideration of the measure. The motion to suspend the rules was defeated on a 178- 239 vote and the bill was rejected.

The subject of this vote is final passage of a bill that would impose limits on medical malpractice awards. Provisions in the bill would also prevent lawsuits against drug and medical device manufacturers if their products were either approved by the Food and Drug Administration or are generally considered safe. In the view of Progressives, the legislation would undermine patients' rights to the courts and discourage competent attorneys from taking legal action on behalf of victims of negligent and/or incompetent medical care. The legislation passed the House by a 217-203 vote margin. (The measure did not pass the Senate and was not signed into law.)

The motion to recommit is one of the few procedural rights afforded to opponents of legislation debated in the House. If successful, the motion recommits the bill to committee and is often accompanied with instructions to change the legislation to incorporate the concerns of opponents. During House debate on a bill to cap medical malpractice awards, Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) motioned to recommit the bill with instructions that the committee add language that would have specified that the legislation would not preempt state laws relating to the liability of health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Progressives supported the recommit motion as a way to insure that HMOs-many of which base their medical decisions on cost considerations rather than the needs of their patients-are held liable for any decisions that cause serious harm or death to their patients. The motion to recommit the bill was defeated on a 193-225 vote.

Many Republicans attribute the rising costs of health care to malpractice suits brought against health care providers for negligent and/or incompetent medical care. In a move to curb the costs of those lawsuits, legislation was drafted that would limit the punitive damages awarded against medical providers and health insurers. Progressives opposed the bill because, in their view, patients' rights to the courts would be subverted. Moreover, Progressives argued that the cap on medical malpractice suits would discourage competent attorneys from taking legal action on behalf of victims. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on the underlying legislation. Before a matter can be considered on the House floor, a rule must be adopted to set parameters on debate (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership). Progressives opposed the rule based on their objections to the underlying legislation but the rule was passed on a vote of 221-197.

For legislation to pass Congress, the measure must be adopted by the House and the Senate in identical forms. Frequently, bills pass one legislative body but not the other and are defeated as a result. In an effort to admonish the Senate for its failure to act on several House-passed measures, House GOP leaders drafted several "sense of the House" resolutions which stated that the Senate should act on those issues. Unlike all other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are nonbinding and lack the force of law. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a rule governing debate on three sense of the House resolutions. Those resolutions would urge Congress to pass legislation pertaining to employee pension funds, tax breaks for married couples, and incentives for pension and retirement contributions. Progressives opposed the motion to move the previous question based on their opposition to the GOP-drafted bills in those three areas. The motion was adopted on a 217-200 vote and the rule was subsequently adopted by voice vote (prior to House consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-a functionary of the majority party leadership-must be adopted).

Prior to House consideration of a measure, a rule must be adopted to set parameters on debate. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee (an arm of the majority party leadership) and usually limit debate, schedule a time for a final vote, and restrict amending activity on a measure. On this vote, Republicans sought passage of a resolution that would express the "sense of the House" that the House and Senate reach agreement on welfare and estate tax legislation (sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law). Progressives opposed the resolution because, in their view, the welfare and estate tax bills would be bad public policies. Progressives opposed provisions in the welfare bill which would impose additional restrictions on welfare benefits and deny all benefits to legal immigrants. Moreover, in the view of Progressives, the estate tax repeal would only serve to benefit wealthy individuals rather than low and middle income taxpayers. The rule passed the House on a 213-200.

The House and Senate have been unable to find common ground on legislation to overhaul the welfare system and repeal the estate tax. On this vote, Republicans sought to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a rule to allow debate on a bill expressing the "sense of the House" that agreement should be reached on welfare and estate tax legislation (sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law). Progressives opposed the resolution because they objected to provisions contained in both bills. In the welfare bill, for instance, Progressives opposed language which would deny benefits to legal immigrants. Moreover, in the view of Progressives, repealing the estate tax would disproportionately wealthy individuals; low and middle income taxpayers, conversely, would not benefit from the estate tax repeal. The motion to move the previous question was adopted by a 214-202 margin.

In recent years, GOP education proposals have emphasized private-school vouchers and other proposals which provide tax breaks for families whose children attend private schools. Progressives have opposed the GOP-efforts because, in their view, taxpayer money should not be used for the benefit of private schools (tax breaks for private schools would reduce incoming revenue to U.S. Treasury that would be used for public purposes). The subject of this vote was passage of a bill which would have provide tax breaks for individuals whose children attend private schools. Progressives opposed the legislation because, in their view, improving the U.S. education system is best achieved by focusing attention on public schools rather than creating incentives for families to send their children to private schools. The legislation was considered under a suspension of House rules, a procedure which is usually reserved for non-controversial bills and requires a two-thirds majority vote for passage. The purpose of the suspension procedure is to expeditiously dispose of noncontroversial measures (suspending the rules limits the available time to debate the legislation and bars amendments). The motion to suspend the rules on the education tax break proposal failed to attract the necessary two-thirds majority vote and was defeated 213-188.

Since 1994, trade agreements between the U.S. President and leaders of foreign countries have required congressional approval (treaties with foreign countries, it should be noted, require congressional approval as specified in the Constitution; international trade agreements, however, are not treaties). In an effort to provide President Bush with additional power in foreign trade negotiations, congressional Republicans sought passage of a bill which would restrict Congress's ability to modify executive agreements with foreign nations. These so-called "fast-track" or "trade promotion authority" powers granted to the president would limit Congress to an up-or-down vote on any international trade agreement; no amendments to the agreement would be allowed. Progressives opposed the grant of authority to the executive so as to preserve congressional influence in international affairs; restricting congressional input to an up-ordown vote, Progressives argued, would diminish Congress's power and undermine the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on a conference report which would provide the president with trade promotion authority for international trade agreements reached before June 1, 2005. Before legislation can be considered on the House floor, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate. Progressives opposed the rule based on their objections to the underlying legislation. The rule was adopted on a 220-200 vote.

Legislation which would consolidate twenty-six federal agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) included a provision providing additional exemptions to the 1966 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beyond the nine exemptions originally provided for in the 1966 law. During House debate on the measure, Congressman Davis (R-VA) offered an amendment which would extend those additional FOIA exemptions to other agencies as determined by the secretary of the new Department. Progressives opposed the Davis proposal because, in their view, citizens should have a right to obtain declassified information about their government. The Davis measure was rejected by a 195-233 vote margin.

During debate on the Homeland Security Department consolidation plan, Congressman Armey (R-TX) offered a manager's amendment. Manager's amendments usually make cosmetic changes to the underlying legislation to ease implementation of the law and are usually non-controversial (a "manager" is the lawmaker responsible for leading debate for the majority party on the House or Senate floor). The Armey amendment, however, included a provision which would exempt airport security screening companies from liability for negligent actions. Progressives opposed this provision in the amendment because, in their view, the previously-considered Turner amendment was a more responsible approach for providing legal protections for companies who may have produced or used faulty anti-terrorism technologies such as bomb detectors and luggage-screening equipment (see Roll Call Vote #359). The Armey amendment, they argued, would extend legal protections to negligent actions by Argenbright, Globe Aviation Services, Huntleigh, and other security companies. Progressives pointed out that Argenbright had hired a number of convicted felons for security screening positions. In February of 2002, a Globe security screener fell asleep at a checkpoint and caused the entire Louisville airport to be evacuated as a result. In May of 2002, Huntleigh screeners allowed a man through security with two loaded semiautomatic pistols. The companies responsible for these and other negligent actions, Progressives contended, should be held legally accountable. The Armey amendment was adopted by a 222-204 vote margin.

Legislation drafted by the White House to consolidate twenty-six federal agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security contained provisions which would limit employment protections for DHS employees. During debate on the bill, Congressman Waxman (D-CA) offered an amendment which would have reinstated civil service employment protections for all federal workers who are transferred into the new Department. Progressives endorsed Waxman's amendment because, in their view, DHS employees should have the same employment protections that other federal employees enjoy. Providing the president with the ability to fire or demote federal employees in the new Department, Progressives argued, would give the administration undue leverage over the DHS workforce which might be abused by management. The Waxman proposal was rejected on a 208-220 vote.

Legislation drafted by the Bush Administration to merge twenty-six federal agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security contained language which would restrict the ability of DHS employees from negotiating collective bargaining agreements. During debate on the bill, Congressman Quinn (R-NY) offered an amendment which would allow the president to nullify collective bargaining agreements for national security reasons. In the view of Progressives, DHS employees should be afforded the same labor rights as other federal employees and opposed the Quinn amendment for that reason. Enabling the president to suspend collective bargaining agreements in the interest of national security, Progressives argued, would provide the president with an undue influence over federal employees; the term "national security", Progressives pointed out, could be used by the president to justify nullifying collective bargaining agreements in a host of circumstances that may or may not directly pertain to U.S. national security. The Quinn amendment was adopted on a 227-202 vote.

Legislation was drafted by the Bush Administration to consolidate twenty-six federal agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The bill included provisions which would limit the labor rights of federal employees who would be transferred to the new Department. During debate on the legislation, Congresswoman Morella (R-MD) proposed an amendment which would have allowed federal employees who are transferred to the new Department to join a union if they were under union protection before their transfer. Morella's amendment would have allowed the president to revoke those union rights only for those employees whose duties directly pertain to preventing terrorist activities. In the view of Progressives, the labor rights of federal employees should not be limited by the president if they transfer to the new department. However, Progressives supported Morella's amendment because in their view, language in the Morella amendment offered better labor union protections for federal employees and was less likely to be abused by the executive than competing proposals such as the Shays amendment (see Roll Call Vote #356). The Morella amendment was rejected by a 208-222 vote margin.

A major source of contention during debate on the administration's plan to consolidate twenty-six federal agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) centered on labor rights for DHS employees. Under President Bush's consolidation plan, labor rights-such as the right to unionize and negotiate collective bargaining agreements-would not be extended to many DHS employees. During debate on the DHS legislation, Congressman Shays (R-CT) proposed legislation which would grant DHS employees the right to unionize unless the president certified that the unionization would hurt homeland security. Progressives opposed Shays's amendment because, in their view, the president should not be allowed to revoke the labor rights of any federal employee. The language in the amendment, they worried, could be interpreted broadly by the administration to deny the labor rights of numerous DHS employees. The Shays measure was adopted on a 229-201 vote.

Legislation which would grant tax breaks for the purchase of long-term health care was considered under a suspension of House rules. The suspension procedure-which is usually reserved for non-controversial measures-limits the time available for debate, bars amendments to the legislation, and requires a two-thirds majority vote for passage of the legislation. Progressives voted in opposition to the suspension motion based on their opposition to the underlying bill. According to Progressives, only wealthy individuals can afford the high costs of long-term health care; very few lower-income individuals enroll in long-term health care plans as a result (on average, those plans cost $1,007 annually for 65-year olds and $4,100 annually for 79-year olds). In the view of Progressives, assisting low-income seniors with their health care costs is more important than providing tax breaks for wealthy seniors. The motion to suspend the rules and adopt the longterm health care tax breaks was adopted on a 362-61 vote.

After the September 11th attacks, the House and Senate intelligence committees set about the task of finding what, if anything, went wrong with U.S. intelligence efforts. But the committees struggled under the sheer size of the burden; both their members and other members of Congress began to get frustrated at the pace of the investigation. Progressives and Democrats in general began to wonder whether the Bush administration wanted the investigation to go slowly, to postpone uncovering embarrassing lapses in intelligence. They proposed an amendment to the bill authorizing intelligence programs for 2003 that would create an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate lapses in the intelligence community. Progressives voted "yes" on this amendment, which won support from all but four Democrats and a sizeable minority of Republicans. The amendment passed 219-188.

The spending bills that travel through Congress every year are broad enough in scope to encourage amendments on a wide range of subjects, and the spending bill to fund the Treasury Department, Postal Service, and White House for 2003 was no exception. Sanders (I-VT) proposed an amendment that would forbid spending money to implement tax breaks for private companies whose pension plans violated federal pension, age discrimination, and other tax laws. Progressives supported this amendment as a roundabout way to force corporate America to obey existing law. Progressives voted "yes," and the amendment was adopted 308-121.

Fiscal conservatives have generally felt that the government spends more than it should. They felt this way about the spending bill to fund the Treasury Department, Postal Service, and White House, even though the bill as proposed did not exceed President Bush's spending target by much. One of the fiscal conservatives, Hefley (R-CO), proposed an amendment that would have cut one percent across the board from all departments and agencies covered by the spending bill. Progressives opposed this move as a clumsy attempt to starve the government of cash. They voted "no" on the amendment, and enough Republican defectors and fellow Democrats joined them to carry the day by a large margin. The amendment was defeated, 147-282.

The large spending bill for the Treasury Department, Postal Service, and White House covered a wide range of programs and so encouraged a wide range of amendments. Hefley (R-CO) proposed an amendment to the bill that would have cut 10 percent from the $3.3 million financial allowances for ex-presidents. Progressives saw this as an attempt to cut money for the sake of cutting money. They believed the cut proposed was miniscule in the larger scale of the budget, but large in its effects on the ability of the former presidents to travel and engage in public life. They voted against the cut in funding, and the amendment was rejected 165-265.

One of President Bush's domestic goals was to reduce the size of the federal workforce as much as possible. Toward that end, the administration was aggressively pursuing efforts to contract services out to the private sector. Moran (D-VA) proposed an amendment to the spending bill for the Treasury Department, Postal Service, and White House that prohibited setting quotas for such outsourcing. Progressives supported this amendment because they saw no need to outsource for the sake of outsourcing, and they felt quotas would encourage the privatization of government jobs just to meet a numerical goal and with no other rationale. Progressives voted for the amendment and it passed, 261-166.

After 42 years, the coalition in support of severe restrictions on relations with Cuba was beginning to unravel. Opponents saw opportunities to dismantle the restrictions in the spending bill to fund the Treasury Department, Postal Service, and White House. Flake (R-AZ) proposed an amendment to this spending bill that forbade any money for the enforcement of a ban on sending money to family in Cuba. Without money, the ban would be unenforceable. Progressives supported this amendment because they believed the ban on sending money to family restricted legitimate behavior, hurt nobody but the Cuban people, and did nothing to undermine the Castro regime. They voted for the amendment, and it passed 251-177.

Opponents of the 42-year-old ban on travel to Cuba wanted to use the spending bill for the Treasury Department, Postal Service, and White House to undermine the ban. They supported an amendment to this spending bill brought by Flake (R-AZ). The amendment forbade any spending on enforcement of the travel ban, thus effectively killing it by starving it for cash. Progressives supported this amendment because they felt the travel ban was a restriction on personal liberty that had done nothing in 40 years to undermine the Castro regime. Together with virtually all Democrats and a sizable minority of Republicans, the amendment was adopted 262-167.

In 2002, the annual spending bill to fund the Treasury Department, the Postal Service, and the White House became embroiled in a debate about the country's relationship to Cuba. Most Democrats and even many Republicans wanted to lift the ban on travel to Cuba. Progressives in particular felt the ban was a restriction on personal liberty and an ineffective means of undermining the Castro regime. They supported denying funding for enforcement of the ban as a way of eliminating it, an approach they could pursue through the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. To forestall efforts to starve the travel ban of funds, Goss (RFL) proposed an amendment that allowed cutting funds for the ban only if the president certified that the Cuban government did not possess weapons of mass destruction and was not aiding terrorists. The majority in Congress who opposed the travel ban-including Progressives-saw this amendment for what it was: an attempt to smother any change under the broader but unrelated issue of the war on terrorism. With Progressives voting "no," the amendment was rejected 182-247.

The Joint Committee on Taxation had been asked in 1999 to produce a report on the consequences to government revenue of wealthy U.S. citizens renouncing their citizenship to avoid their taxes. But the committee had offered nothing by 2002. Progressives suspected the report was being held up because it contained conclusions Republicans did not like. Moran (D-VA) proposed a novel way to pry the report loose: an amendment to the bill funding Congress for the year that would have cut $590,000 from the Joint Committee's budget until it released the report. In the House, bills are normally considered under a special resolution that sets the rules for debate on that bill only. This "rule" must be passed separately before the bill itself can be considered. The rule for the bill funding Congress failed to protect Moran from a potential procedural point of order that could be brought against his amendment. Progressives disagreed with this part of the rule, because they felt Moran's amendment should be considered on its merits. They voted against the rule, but it passed 219-206, thus allowing the point of order and virtually guaranteeing that Moran's amendment would fail.

The Interior Department manages federal lands, administers a wide range of domestic programs, and handles relations between the American Indian tribes and the federal government. Among the programs under the aegis of the department in 2002 were a firefighting program and a program to buy land for conservation purposes. Shadegg (R-AZ) proposed an amendment to the bill that funded Interior for 2003 that cut $36 million from the land acquisition program and added $23.1 million to the firefighting program. Progressives disagreed with these priorities: they felt both programs needed adequate funding, that there was no need to favor firefighting, and that firefighting in fact had enough money to meet its current needs. With the help of "no" votes from Progressives, the amendment was rejected 153-269.

The Department of the Interior is charged with managing federal lands, including the water just off the country's coastline. Capps (D-CA) used this fact to her advantage. When the bill to fund the Interior Department came up for debate, she proposed an amendment that banned oil drilling off the coast of California. Progressives supported the ban because they believed that oil drilling platforms were unsightly and that such drilling risked major oil spills and damage to the environment. To support their argument for a California ban, they pointed to a similar ban that President Bush had imposed on drilling off the coast of Florida. The amendment was adopted 252-172.

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) provides grants to artists to help underwrite their work. Conservatives dislike the program because they dislike much of the art produced with NEA grants. In an effort to weaken the NEA, Tancredo (R-CO) proposed an amendment to the annual bill that funds the program that transferred $50 million from the NEA to the Forest Service. Progressives opposed the transfer of funds because they supported the work of the NEA. Morevoer, the House had earlier adopted an amendment that transferred $10 million into the NEA (vote no. 310), so they were unlikely to support transferring $50 million out again. Their opposition helped kill the amendment by a wide margin, 123-300.

Scandals at companies like Enron and WorldCom had shaken investor confidence in the accuracy of corporate financial statements. Republicans began to feel pressure to enact reform as the midterm elections approached, so under hurried circumstances they proposed a bill that increased fines and jail time for fraudulent reporting of finances. This bill passed (vote no. 299), and though Progressives agreed with its provisions in general, they did not feel the bill went far enough to curb malfeasance by corporate executives. House and Senate negotiators had yet to work together to develop a final version of the bill. Taking advantage of this situation, Conyers (D-MI) moved to instruct the negotiators from the House side to accept certain changes in the Senate bill, including protections for corporate whistleblowers, an extension of the statute of limitations for claims of securities fraud, forcing auditors to maintain records of an audit for at least five years, and increasing prison sentences in cases of fraud with extremely negative consequences. Progressives supported this motion as a way to beef up the regulations in the bill, but it was rejected 207-218.

The Department of the Interior serves a number of functions: it manages public lands, it administers a range of domestic programs, and it handles federal relations with American Indians. In relation to this last function, Republicans inserted a provision in the Interior funding bill for 2003 that established a commission to study Indian gaming. Progressives opposed this provision because they saw it as a way to undermine an industry that was permitted according to existing law and that had benefited a number of tribes. They supported a Hayworth (R-AZ) amendment that struck this gaming provision from the funding law. The amendment was adopted 273-151.

The Department of the Interior manages public lands, administers a wide range of domestic programs, and oversees relations between the federal government and American Indians. Interior had been charged with managing an account for the money tribes received for commercial exploitation of their land. This account had been set up in 1885, but had been famously mismanaged ever since. The Clinton administration had begun the process of tracking down all the money that was owed to these tribes since 1885, and by 2002 the process still had another ten years to go. Republicans had inserted a provision into the bill that funded the Interior Department for 2003 that cut the time period covered by this review from 118 years to 18 years. Progressives considered this just another attempt to deny American Indians the funds that had been promised to them by law. They supported an amendment by Rahall (D-WV) that cut this provision and maintained the account review for the whole period since 1885. The amendment passed by a wide margin, 281-144.

This amendment was part of a larger debate on funding the Interior Department, which mostly handles the administration of public lands. However, the bill to fund this department also provided funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), agencies created to underwrite the work of artists and scholars. Slaughter (D-NY) proposed an amendment to the Interior Department bill that added $10 million to the NEA and $5 million to the NEH by removing the money from the administrative expenses of other programs. Progressives supported the work of both agencies, so they favored the move. The amendment passed, 234-192.

At issue in this vote was a bill that made a number of technical amendments to the Higher Education Act. These amendments were mostly designed to ease student access to educational loans and other sources of funding from the federal government. Progressives had no complaints about the substance of the bill itself. What they disliked was the process of passing it: Republicans had proposed the bill under "suspension of the rules," which prevents any amendments to the bill and requires a twothirds vote to pass it. Progressives and Democrats in general had a number of amendments they wanted to add to the bill, including provisions to encourage teachers to work in low-income areas, to waive student loans for the victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks, to permit student loans for those who had been convicted of a drug offense before applying for the loan (as opposed to during the loan period), and many more. Many of the Democratic amendments were even supported by a substantial number of Republicans. Progressives were angry that the Republicans chose to shut them out of the process, and they voted against the higher education bill in protest, despite supporting many of its provisions. With the help of these Progressive "no" votes, the bill fell short of the 282 votes needed to pass, 246-177.

The Department of the Interior administers a wide range of programs, most of them involving the management of public lands. However, the bill to fund this department for 2003 also included funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, and Progressives felt the funding in the bill for these two programs was inadequate. Because they opposed the bill as it was originally proposed by Republicans, they also opposed the bill's "rule": the set of instructions for debate that must be passed before the bill can be considered. They voted "no" on this rule, but it had enough Democratic and Republican support to pass by a wide margin, 322-101.

After the September 11th terrorist attacks, a bipartisan coalition supported arming airline pilots to help prevent another hijacking. Progressives were skeptical of such an idea, believing that armed pilots might create more dangers to the passengers and crew than they would eliminate. But others felt the existing plan did not go far enough. Hostettler (R-IN) proposed an amendment that not only allowed all pilots to receive handguns, it required 20 percent of initial volunteers to be trained within half a year of the bill's passage. Progressives disliked giving the pilots guns in the first place, so they also disagreed with speeding the law's implementation. They voted "no," and the amendment was rejected 169-256.

As the costs of prescription drugs increased beyond the power of many seniors to pay for them, both parties explored ways to help seniors pay for the drugs through existing Medicare coverage. The Republican plan relied heavily on private insurance companies to provide the coverage, and included a $33 monthly premium and a $250 annual deductible. Patients in the plan would be required to pay 20 percent of costs from $250 to $1,000, 50 percent of the costs from $1,000 to $2,000, and all costs from $2,000 to $3,700. All costs above $3,700 would be covered. Progressives did not support this Republican proposal because of its gaps in coverage and because it did not guarantee that insurance companies would step up to provide the service. They were joined by all but eight Democrats in opposing the bill, but it still passed 221-208.

Seniors had been asking for several years for a Medicare prescription drug plan that would cover sky-rocketing drug costs. House Republicans proposed a plan administered by Medicare but provided by private insurance companies. The plan had a monthly premium of $33 and an annual deductible of $250. Patients were responsible for 20 percent of costs between $250 and $1,000, 50 percent of costs between $1,000 and $2,000, and all costs between $2,000 and $3,700. The insurance company paid for everything above $3,700. Progressives opposed this plan because it had so many gaps in coverage and because it provided no guarantee that insurance companies would step forward to participate. They supported a Democratic alternative that reduced the premium to $25 per month and required patients to pay 20 percent of costs below $2,000. All costs above $2,000 would be completely covered. This plan was offered by Gephardt (D-MO) as a motion to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that the Republican version be replaced with the Democratic version. Progressives voted "yes" on this motion to recommit, but the motion was rejected 204-223.

President Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut from 2003 was a major factor behind the growing federal deficits in 2002. The deficits had become large enough that the federal debt was pressing up against its established limit. Beyond that limit, the federal government would go into default. Republicans and Democrats both favored increasing the limit. They disagreed over whether the limit should be increased without any attempt to consider other options. Republicans had no intention of reconsidering the tax cut. They proposed a bill that would increase the debt limit by $450 billion-enough to keep the government from defaulting on its debt until well into 2003. Progressives and Democrats in general favored a smaller increase that would keep the government solvent while they examined the options in a bipartisan budget summit. They supported a Moore (D-KS) motion to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that the debt limit increase be reduced to $150 billion. Progressives and all but three of their fellow Democrats voted for this motion, but it was rejected 207-222.

In large part because of the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001, the federal budget faced increasing deficits in the years ahead. These deficits would increase the public debt beyond the amount specifically authorized by Congress. Exceeding this amount would either put the government in default on its debt or require a partial shutdown of government services. Republicans-who had come to support tax cuts more than a balanced budget-proposed a bill in the House that would increase the debt limit by $450 billion. This promised them enough room to avoid worrying about the size of the debt for years to come. Progressives opposed this increase because they wanted to force Republicans to address the consequences of their tax cuts. In the House, most legislation requires a separate "rule" that establishes the procedural outlines of debate on a bill. The Republican leadership knew that raising the debt limit was unpopular, so they introduced the rule on the debt limit bill as an amendment to a rule for another bill-authorization of the defense department. The defense bill was almost uniformly popular, so this move increased the chances that the debt limit rule would be passed and the debt limit bill itself could be considered. A previous question motion was raised on this amendment-a way of cutting off debate and bringing it to a vote. Progressives voted "no" because they opposed the debt limit increase, opposed its rule, and opposed attaching that rule to the rule for the defense authorization. Even so, the motion passed 221-210, and the amendment to the rule was brought to a vote.

Most of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 had been temporary, and were scheduled to expire by around 2010. Republicans in the House worked throughout 2002 to make permanent as many of these cuts as possible. Among the tax cuts they wanted to make permanent were incentives to encourage participation in pensions and retirement plans. Progressives felt that reconsideration of these incentives, combined with the scandals of Enron and other corporations, provided the perfect opportunity to reign in corporate excesses. They offered an amendment to the tax cut extension that would have required executives to pay capital gains on stock options if their companies relocated overseas, would have extended an excise tax on large severance packages, and would have taxed deferred-compensation plans that have been used to avoid bankruptcy restrictions. This amendment was rejected, 182-204.

Throughout 2002, Republicans made a concerted attempt to make permanent the various temporary provisions in the $1.3 trillion Bush tax cut of 2001. One such attempt concerned the tax breaks to encourage more pension and retirement contributions. Progressives opposed these attempts, arguing that extending such incentives was useless if corporate corruption was not addressed first, because executives could always destroy any retirement program through their own misbehavior. Moreover, there were concerns that the pension tax breaks under consideration were technically complex enough that only the wealthy would truly take advantage of them. In the House, most bills debated on the floor come with a set of rules for debate that are passed separately from the bill itself. If the rule fails, the bill effectively fails as well. Progressives attempted to kill the pension tax break by voting down its corresponding rule, but they were strongly outnumbered, 344-52.

Republicans in the House sought to use funds from the federal Airport Improvement Program to pay for the construction and maintenance costs of privately-run control towers. A provision in this bill allowed small airports to use these funds to reimburse themselves for the costs of towers constructed before 1996. Seeing this as an unnecessary handout to such airports, Progressives opposed this provision. With Progressive support, Oberstar (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the bill that would remove the provision. This vote was on Oberstar's amendment, so a yes vote was a vote against the small airport reimbursement and for the Progressive position. The amendment was rejected, 202-223.

Married couples had received certain tax breaks in Bush's 2001 tax cut: an increase in the standard deduction, a doubling of the portion of their income subject to the 15 percent tax rate, and an increase in the maximum income permissible under the earned income tax credit. These provisions would phase in by 2008 or 2009, but then cease by 2010-Republicans proposed extending them to 2012, at a cost of $41.9 billion. Progressives felt the government was in no fiscal position to provide more tax cuts, and that the marriage breaks Republicans proposed might threaten other programs like Social Security. To address this issue, they proposed an alternative: an extension of the tax breaks, but only if the Office of Management and Budget certified that none of the money necessary to fund the cuts would come from the Social Security trust fund. Progressives voted for this substitute proposal, but it was rejected, 198-213.

This was the seventh time in as many years that the Republicans in the House proposed a constitutional amendment to make it more difficult to pass tax increases. The measure would change the required vote for a tax increase from a simple majority to two-thirds of each body. Progressives complained that this would leave future Congresses no choice but to cut government programs, because such cuts would still require only a simple majority to pass. A constitutional amendment must receive a twothirds vote in each house of Congress to pass. Though a majority of the House favored this constitutional amendment, 227- 178, this vote was still 43 short of the necessary two-thirds. The vote therefore failed, and the amendment was shelved for another year.

The president's 2001 tax cut temporarily repealed the estate tax, which affected the largest two percent of private inheritances. The 2001 law increased the $675,000 cutoff for the tax until the tax disappeared entirely in 2010. What bothered Republicans was that this repeal itself disappeared in 2011, at which point the tax would return with a cutoff of $1 million. To correct this perceived deficiency, they proposed a bill in the House that would make the repeal permanent. Progressives opposed this move because the tax affected only the very richest Americans and repealing it deprived the government of a substantial source of revenue. Stenholm (D-TX) moved to recommit (send back) this bill to its committee with instructions that it be changed to forbid the permanent repeal if such a repeal would undermine the Social Security program. Progressives favored this change because they worried the tax repeal would affect the ability of Social Security to meet its obligations. They voted for Stenholm's motion, but their support was not enough. The motion was rejected 205-223.

Prior to the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001, the federal government imposed a tax on the largest private inheritances-those worth more than $675,000. The 2001 tax cut gradually increased this cutoff until the tax disappeared entirely in 2010. But after 2010, the tax was set to return to something approximating its original form. Republicans saw this as a deficiency, so they proposed a bill in the House to make the repeal permanent. Progressives opposed this bill because they felt the repeal benefited only the very wealthiest Americans while sapping the U.S. Treasury of a substantial amount of money. As a compromise, they supported a substitute version proposed by Pomeroy (D-ND). Pomeroy's version would maintain the tax but permanently increase the cutoff to $3 million and cap the size of the tax at 50 percent (it also would have replaced a five percent surtax on estates valued at over $10 million). Progressives voted for this substitute, but it was rejected 197-231.

The $1.3 trillion package of tax cuts pushed through by President Bush in 2001 included temporary repeal of the estate tax. The estate tax affected only the largest two percent of inheritances; the repeal gradually shrank that number until the tax itself disappeared in 2010. But after 2010 the tax was scheduled to return to something close to its original form. Republicans wanted the tax eliminated permanently, and they proposed a bill that would do just that. Progressives opposed this bill: they noted that the tax affected only the richest Americans but provided a substantial portion of the money for the treasury. In the House, most bills come with a "rule": a separate resolution that establishes the rules for debate on the bill and that must be voted on first before the bill itself can be considered. Progressives opposed the rule that accompanied the estate tax repeal because they opposed the repeal itself. Though they were joined in this position by all but ten Democrats, no Republicans voted against the rule. It passed 227-195.

Repeal of the estate tax was part of the Bush administration's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001. The tax had applied only to inheritances greater than $675,000- the wealthiest two percent of estates-but the 2001 changes increased this number gradually until the tax disappeared entirely in 2010. After that, the tax returned in full force. Republicans were determined to make the repeal permanent, and they proposed legislation to that effect in the House. Progressives disagreed with permanent or even temporary repeal of the estate tax, which they noted affects only the very wealthiest Americans but provides a substantial portion of the federal government's revenues. Most bills in the House come with a set of rules for debate that must be passed separately before debate on the bill itself can begin. Progressives opposed this "rule" for the estate tax because they opposed the bill itself. When Hastings (R-WA) moved to order the previous question-a way of cutting off debate and bringing the rule to a vote-Progressives voted "no" because they did not want the process to move forward at all. However, they were outvoted, and the motion passed 223-201.

In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, a broad agreement developed in Congress that more spending was needed to cope with the aftermath. Republicans used this consensus to their advantage, by attaching some controversial provisions to the supplemental appropriations bill that provided the extra funding. Two of these provisions were particularly galling to Progressives: a cap on spending for the upcoming year's appropriations that Progressives felt was far too low; and language that prevented a vote on raising the country's debt ceiling, a change everyone agreed was necessary but that Progressives wanted vote on to highlight the debt problem as a consequence of the Bush administration's tax cuts. Obey (D-WI) moved to recommit (send back) this bill to its committee to remove the debt ceiling language and allow an up-or-down vote. Progressives voted "yes" on this motion, but it did not pass. The vote was 201-215.

The Republican leadership offered a spending bill to address additional funding needs following the September 11th terrorist attacks, and its core provisionsadditional spending for the military, homeland security, and New York City-received broad support. But the Republican leadership also attached controversial amendments to the bill in the hope that they would ride through on the bill's popularity. Two in particular angered Progressives: a cap on spending for 2003 that Progressives found unrealistically low; and language that prevented a vote on increasing the country's debt ceiling, something everyone knew had to be done but that Progressives wanted to bring to a vote to call attention to what they felt were the consequences of the Bush tax cuts. To fight the bill, Progressives joined Obey (D-WI) in raising countless dilatory motions and amendments. This approach was so successful that Republicans had been forced to pull the bill from the floor and start from scratch. In the House, most bills come with a "rule" that establishes the ground rules for debate and must be passed before the bill itself can be considered. The first rule Republicans had proposed for debate gave Democrats a great deal of freedom to bring amendments and other motions to a vote. After suffering at the hands of dilatory tactics by Progressives and Democrats in general, this second rule was much more restrictive: it prohibited any amendments and limited total debate to just one hour. Progressives knew their one piece of leverage would disappear under this second rule, so they voted against it. However, Republicans closed ranks and the rule passed, 213-201.

After the September 11th attacks, a broad consensus developed in Congress to increase spending for military and homeland security needs, and to provide assistance to New York City. The vehicle for this extra spending was a supplemental appropriations bill. The Republican leadership decided to use the opportunity to push through more contentious items by attaching them to this popular spending package. Two in particular were noxious to Progressives. One established a target spending figure for the upcoming year's appropriations that Progressives found too low to meet the country's needs. The other prevented a vote on raising the country's debt limit; Progressives believed it was the president's tax cuts that had required raising the debt limit, and they wanted to call attention to this fact by holding a vote on the issue. Progressives joined Obey (D-WI) in attacking the Republican spending plan through a series of dilatory parliamentary procedures. As it became clear to the Republican leadership that Obey's tactics would grind the process to a halt, they decided to withdraw the spending plan from the floor and regroup. This motion to adjourn allowed them to pull the bill, and gave them a few hours to devise a new plan of attack. Because Progressives felt they were getting the upper hand, they did not want to give the Republicans this opportunity to devise a new strategy. They voted "no" on the motion, but it passed, 211-189.

In the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, there was a broad consensus on Capitol Hill that more spending was needed, particularly on homeland security, the military, and aid to New York City. The Republican leadership provided that extra spending in a supplemental appropriations bill, but they used the popularity of this bill to push through more contentious provisions. Two of these were particularly galling to Progressives. The first set a spending limit for upcoming 2003 appropriations that Progressives considered far too low to meet the government's needs. The second prevented a vote on raising the government's debt ceiling. Everyone agreed the debt ceiling needed to be raised to keep the government solvent; Progressives wanted a vote on the matter so they could make the case that the Bush tax cuts had made the increase necessary. Obey (D-WI) tried to force the Republicans to back track on these two provisions by bringing countless procedural motions and minor amendments to a vote. The amendment at issue here reduced the portion of funds for the National Guard that were subject to emergency designation. Emergency status gave the president the discretion not to spend the money. Progressives supported this amendment because they wanted better funding for homeland security and did not want to leave the decision entirely up to President Bush, but they backed the amendment mostly because they supported Obey's efforts to gum up the works. The longer the legislative process could be stalled, the more likely it was that Republicans would be forced to permit a separate vote on the debt ceiling. The amendment was rejected 197-216.

The September 11th attacks created a new demand in Congress for spending on the military and homeland security. The Republican leadership responded with a supplemental appropriations bill that provided extra funding for these areas in addition to assistance to New York City. But the leadership also saw the opportunity to use the popular bill to force through more controversial measures. They attached two items in particular that angered Progressives. The first capped spending for the upcoming 2003 appropriations at a level Progressives considered far too low. The second prevented a vote on raising the government's debt ceiling, something everyone agreed needed to be done: Progressives wanted a vote so they could highlight their belief that raising the ceiling was only necessary because of Bush tax cuts. To fight this bill, Obey (D-WI) prepared hundreds of procedural motions and minor amendments to slow down the process and force Republicans to relent on the two controversial provisions. The amendment at issue here struck language that established an emergency designation for extra money allocated to cover FBI salaries and expenses. With an emergency designation, this money would be spent only at the president's discretion. Obey suggested that the money needed to be spent regardless of whether the president chose to spend it. To Progressives, the substance of the amendment-which they favored as a way to ensure more spending for homeland security-was less important than the fact that it gummed up the process. The longer the legislative process could be stalled, the more likely it was that Republicans would be forced to permit a separate vote on the debt ceiling. They voted "yes" for this reason. The amendment was rejected 199-213.

Gephardt (D-MO) had attempted to remove this debt ceiling language from the bill through an amendment that struck the language from the bill. Progressives favored this amendment because they wanted a chance to confront Republicans about the costs of their tax cuts. In a countermove, Young (R-FL) made a point of order against Gephardt's amendment, claiming that Gephardt would be striking a previously adopted amendment, which is forbidden by House rules. The chair ruled in Young's favor, but Gephardt appealed the ruling. This vote was on the question of whether the chair's ruling would be sustained. Progressives voted "no" because they favored Gephardt's amendment and opposed Young's point of order against it, so they also disagreed with the ruling of the chair and did not want it sustained. Still, they were in the minority: the ruling was upheld 215-203, and Gephardt's amendment was rejected.

Republicans in the House proposed a bill to reauthorize the Customs Service that made changes Progressives could not support. The bill protected Customs agents from lawsuits for wrongful searches so long as the search followed departmental procedure. The bill also allowed Customs agents to search unsealed outbound international mail. Progressives felt both provisions violated the civil rights of ordinary Americans: the second did so quite directly, while the first encouraged violations of civil rights because victims would have no recourse when mistreated. Waters (D-CA) proposed an amendment to the bill that would strike these two provisions. Progressives voted for this amendment, but it was rejected 197-231.

Republicans had pushed through a welfare reform bill in 1996 that fundamentally changed the program from an entitlement with few requirements to a temporary 2-year assistance program with many strings attached. This law was due to be renewed, and Republicans wanted to take that opportunity to further tighten the restrictions. They sought to increase the work requirement from 30 to 40 hours per week, and to require states to find jobs for 70 percent of their recipients, up from 50 in the existing law. The bill also added some money for child care and programs to promote marriage. Progressives opposed most everything in the bill. They felt there was no need to tighten restrictions on a law they believed was draconian enough in the first place, and they also thought the program needed more funding for child care and less for marriage promotion. All but 14 Democrats joined them in opposition, but their "no" votes were not enough to pull the bill down. The reauthorization passed, 229- 197.

The welfare reform law of 1996 had changed welfare from an entitlement with few restrictions to a temporary assistance program with a number of restrictions. With this bill due for renewal, Republicans decided to take the opportunity to tighten the restrictions further still. Their bill increased the number of hours a recipient was required to work from 30 to 40 per week, and they increased the percentage of recipients a state was required to put to work from 50 to 70. Progressives disagreed with the changes because they felt the existing law was hard enough on welfare recipients, especially in a weak economy. They also felt the Republican bill did not provide enough funding for child care. They backed a Maloney (D-CT) motion to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that the funding for child care be increased. Republicans, however, did not agree that the program was underfunded. On a strict party-line vote, Maloney's motion to recommit was rejected 207-219, and the bill remained as it was.

One of the biggest Republican victories since taking over the House in 1995 was the welfare reform law of 1996. The law changed welfare from an entitlement to a twoyear temporary assistance program with strings attached. Republicans sought to use the first renewal of this law to tighten its restrictions still further. They wanted to increase the number of hours a recipient was required to work from 30 to 40 per week, and they wanted to increase the share of recipients a state was required to get into a job from 50 percent to 70 percent. Progressives disliked these changes, because they felt the provisions listed above from the original welfare reform law were too hard on welfare recipients in the first place. In their view, making the law more stringent would only worsen the situation, especially in the weak existing economy. They favored a substitute offered by Cardin (D-MD) that maintained the existing 30-hour-per-week requirement, increased child care funding more than in the Republican bill, tied federal funding for the states to inflation, provided assistance to legal immigrants, and allowed education and training programs to count toward a state's employment rate. Though all but ten Democrats supported this substitute, all but four Republicans voted against it. It was rejected 198-222.

Congress had passed major welfare reform in 1996 that changed the program from an entitlement to a program of temporary assistance. By 2002, the program needed to be reauthorized, and Republicans planned to use the opportunity to tighten the program's restrictions. Their welfare bill raised the work requirement for recipients from 30 to 40 hours per week, and it required states to get 70 percent of their recipients into a job, up from 50 percent in the 1996 bill. Progressives felt the existing 1996 changes were draconian enough, and opposed attaching any more strings to the money. As a result, they voted "no" on a special procedural vote that permitted the bill to be considered. In the House, important bills come with instructions on the conduct of debate-called simply the "rule"-that must be voted on separately before debate on the bill can begin. Progressives opposed the rule for the welfare bill because they opposed the bill itself. Complicating matters was the fact that the rule for the welfare bill was written and proposed on the same day, which according to House procedures meant it needed to pass by a two-thirds vote instead of a simple majority. House Republicans had to pass another rule to waive this requirement. Because Progressives opposed the welfare bill and its rule, they also opposed this secondary rule that waived the two-thirds requirement and so made it easier to pass the welfare bill itself. However, this secondary rule was adopted on an almost perfect party-line vote, 219-200.

Every year, Congress must authorize the military programs it feels should receive funding. The military authorization bill that the president and his allies on Capitol Hill proposed for 2003 included a number of controversial provisions, including authorization for a missiledefense system. Progressives opposed such a system as expensive, unworkable, and likely to destabilize American foreign policy. Along these lines, Spratt (D-SC) moved to recommit (send back) the authorization bill to its committee with instructions that a ban on spending for nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptors be added. Progressives-who opposed a missile defense system on general principle-were strongly behind the Spratt motion because they could see no need to implement nuclear weapons in this way. But all but two Republicans voted against Spratt's motion, so it was rejected 193- 223.

Republicans included several provisions in the military authorization bill for 2003 that Progressives could not go along with. The bill allowed the military to study using nuclear weapons for "conventional" war; it gave the military an exemption from certain environmental laws for military training exercises; and it permitted the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives were opposed to all three. They felt nuclear combat should be avoided at all costs, they saw no reason why national security and environmentalism should be at odds, and they felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 83-312, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning.

Republicans proposed a military authorization bill for 2003 that took several controversial positions Progressives strongly opposed. The bill allowed testing for the use of nuclear weapons in "conventional" war, while Progressives felt nuclear combat of any kind was anathema; the bill gave the military an exemption from certain environmental laws for training exercises, while Progressives believed environmental laws could be enforced without threatening national security; and the bill paved the way for a missile defense system. Joining Progressives in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 75-319, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning.

The military authorization bill congressional Republicans proposed made several changes that Progressives could not support. It permitted the testing of nuclear weapons for use in "conventional" war; it exempted military training exercises from certain environmental regulations; and it moved the country closer to a missile defense system. Progressives were against all three. They opposed nuclear combat of any kind, they saw no reason why national security and environmental protection needed to be conflicting goals, and felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 58-325, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning.

The military authorization bill as proposed by congressional Republicans earned the wrath of Progressives. It allowed the military to study using nuclear weapons for "conventional" war, while Progressives opposed nuclear combat of any kind; it gave the military an exemption from certain environmental laws for military training exercises, while Progressives felt environmental protection and national security were compatible goals; and it permitted the beginnings of a missile defense system that Progressives deemed expensive, dangerous, and unworkable. Joining Progressives in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 56-339, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning.

Progressives found themselves deeply opposed to several elements of the Republican bill to authorize military programs for 2003. Republicans had used the bill to permit testing the use of nuclear weapons in "conventional" combat, to carve out an exception from certain environmental laws for military training exercises, and to start the development of a missile defense system. Progressives opposed using nuclear weapons for any purpose, they opposed special exemptions to environmental laws, and they saw a missile defense system as dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 55-336, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning.

Progressive Democrats found it hard to accept some of the changes to the military included in the Republicans' authorization of defense programs for 2003. The $383.4 billion measure allowed the military to study using nuclear weapons for "conventional" war, exempted military training exercises from certain environmental laws, and authorized the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives were opposed to all three, because they were against nuclear combat of any kind, supported maintaining environmental regulations for everyone, and felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 48-356, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning.

When congressional Republicans proposed a bill to authorize military programs for 2003, it came with some controversial provisions. The bill allowed the military to study using nuclear weapons for "conventional" war; it gave the military an exemption from certain environmental laws for military training exercises; and it permitted the beginnings of a missile defense system. Because Progressives were opposed to nuclear warfare of any kind, opposed to what they saw as an expensive and unworkable missile defense system, and opposed to special exemptions from environmental laws, they were opposed to the whole bill as well. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 46-356, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning.

The bill the Republicans proposed to authorize military programs for 2003 permitted the military to test using nuclear weapons in "conventional" war, exempted military training exercises from certain environmental regulations, and allowed the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives opposed all three because they were against nuclear combat of any kind, supported maintaining environmental regulations for everyone, and felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 51-360, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning.

The annual authorization of military programs is often a relatively non-partisan affair, but Republicans used the authorization bill to propose several controversial changes. The bill they developed allowed for the testing of nuclear weapons for "conventional" war; it gave the military an exemption from certain environmental laws for military training exercises; and it permitted the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives were against all three. They opposed using nuclear weapons in any situation, let alone conventional war; they saw no threat to national security from environmental laws; and they felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 49-352, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning.

The military authorization bill as proposed by congressional Republicans included a number of provisions that were anathema to Progressives. It allowed the military to study using nuclear weapons for "conventional" war; it gave the military an exemption from certain environmental laws for military training exercises; and it permitted the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives were opposed to all three, because they were against the use of nuclear weapons, supported maintaining environmental regulations for everyone, and felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 51-356, but victory was not the object: the purpose was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only the first of many attempts that would together take debate into the small hours of the morning.

In their package of military programs for 2003, the Republicans proposed several controversial items. The bill permitted the military to explore using small nuclear weapons in "conventional" warfare; it lifted certain environmental regulations for military training exercises; and it provided for the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives opposed these changes. They opposed using nuclear weapons for any purpose, and they believed a missile defense system was a technical impossibility that would be unlikely to stop the most serious threats even if it worked. Progressives also fundamentally disagreed that the military needed an exemption from environmental regulations for the sake of national security. They therefore opposed the "rule" on the authorization bill: the set of instructions for debate that included the time each side would be given to speak and the number of amendments they would be allowed to offer. To kill the rule was to effectively vote down the bill itself. However, despite being joined in opposition by almost all Democrats, Progressive opposition was not enough to vote down the rule. It passed 216-200, and the stage was set for debate on the authorization bill itself.

The Republican proposal to authorize $383.4 billion in military programs for 2003 included a number of contentious provisions. The plan permitted the military to explore using small nuclear warheads in "conventional" warfare; it exempted military training exercises from some environmental regulations; and it authorized the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives felt it was unnecessary to lift environmental regulations for the sake of military preparedness. They also opposed using nuclear weapons for any purpose, and believed the missile defense system was ineffective and expensive. Because they opposed the bill itself, they also opposed its "rule": the set of instructions for debate that must be voted on separately in the House before a bill itself can be considered. In the midst of debating the rule for the defense authorization bill, Myrick (R-NC) moved to order the previous question, a way of ending debate and calling the rule to a vote. Because they opposed the bill and its rule, Progressives also opposed the motion for the previous question. Though they were joined by all other Democrats, their votes were not enough to kill the motion, which passed 215-202.

Prior to House floor consideration, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-an arm of the majority party leadershipmust be adopted to set parameters on debate. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a "self enforcing" rule. When the House adopts a "selfenforcing" rule, the vote on the rule is essentially a vote on the underlying legislation itself. In this case, the self-enforcing rule dealt with a resolution which expressed disapproval of President Bush's decision to impose a thirty-percent tariff on imported steel. If passed, the self-enforcing rule would automatically strike down that resolution. Proponents of the resolution argued that tariffs should be limited to twenty-percent; the tariff level recommended by the International Trade Commission (ITC). Those lawmakers argued that enacting a thirty-percent tariff would inspire foreign steel-producing nations to increase tariffs on U.S. goods as a form of retribution. Other legislators took an opposite approach. In their view, the influx of steel imports-which came mainly from Asia-violated international free trade agreements because the foreign-produced steel was sold to the U.S. below cost and was therefore illegal. U.S. steel companies, they argued, cannot effectively compete with foreign steel industries that are dumping steel on the world market to recoup losses from inefficient domestic production rather than to make a profit. Lawmakers who generally support free-trade agreements, then, were divided on the steel tariff issue; some opposed the Bush tariffs as an anti-free trade policy while others viewed the dumping of steel by foreign companies as a violation of free-trade agreements and therefore supported Bush's steel tariff. Progressives-who often support tariffs as a way to protect U.S. workers from international trade agreements-voted in opposition to the procedural motion which would allow a vote on the self-enforcing rule because, in their view, a straight up-or-down vote should have been held on the steel tariffs issue. Hiding the policy outcome of steel tariffs in complex procedural maneuvering, they argued, would hinder public awareness and reduce the accountability of lawmakers to steel workers as a result. The motion to proceed to a vote on the self enforcing rule was adopted 355-62, the rule was subsequently passed by a 386-30 vote margin, and, with the adoption of the self enforcing rule, the resolution expressing opposition to President Bush's steel tariff proposal was automatically struck down.

With the president preparing to turn his attention to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, many members of Congress wanted to make a statement in support of Israel's fight against terrorism and against Yasser Arafat. Progressives opposed making such a statement, because they felt it would undermine America's role as a neutral arbiter in the conflict, and because it failed to call Israel to account for killing Palestinian civilians and maintaining settlements in the occupied territories. In the House, most measures come with a set of rules that must be approved before the measure itself can be considered. Those pushing the statement of support for Israel wanted to suspend the rules, which limits debate, forbids amendments, and requires a two-thirds vote to pass. However, they first proposed a rule for debate on suspending the rules. Progressives opposed the statement of support and opposed passing it under suspension of the rules (which prevented them from bringing any amendments), so they also opposed this rule that allowed these other measures to be considered. However, they were in the minority, and the rule outlining debate on suspension of the rules passed by a wide margin, 329-76.

As the Bush Administration prepared to try to broker a peace between Israel and Palestine, Congress was eager to make a statement in support of the former over the latter. The non-binding statement backed Israel's efforts against terrorism and condemned Yasser Arafat for his apparent support of terrorist attacks. Progressives opposed this statement because they felt it only complicated peace efforts by undermining the "neutral broker" role of the United States, and because they felt Israel should also answer for killing Palestinian civilians and refusing to withdraw settlements. In the House, most bills come with a set of rules for debate that must be voted on before the bill itself can be considered. This process can be evaded by proposing to suspend the rules, which limits debate, forbids amendments, and requires a two-thirds vote to pass the bill itself. Supporters of the pro-Israel statement decided to suspend the rules for its passage, but this suspension and passage motion itself needed to be debated. Toward that end, the Republican leadership proposed a secondary rule that would dictate the conduct of this secondary debate about the motion to suspend the rules. This secondary rule also required its own debate. In the midst of this debate on the secondary rule, Diaz-Balart (R-FL) moved to order the previous question, a way of cutting off the debate and calling a vote on the rule being discussed. Progressives opposed the statement of support, so they opposed suspending the rules to pass it, opposed passing the rule that would allow the process to begin, and opposed the motion to bring this rule to a vote. They voted "no" on the motion to order the previous question, but they were greatly outnumbered in this position. The motion passed 328-82.

The farm bill is a huge conglomeration of federal agriculture programs that must be reauthorized every few years. By 2002 reauthorization was overdue, so members of both parties struggled hard to put together a package. The bill they settled on took a step back from the free-market solutions favored by Republicans in the reauthorization of 1996. It also retreated from some Progressive elements in the Senate's version of the bill. The Senate bill gave cash supports to farmers who participated in conservation programs, capped the total subsidies a single farm could receive in a given year at a relatively low $275,000, and thwarted corporate efforts to consolidate animal raising and slaughtering into a single business. The final version of the bill removed the slaughtering restrictions and many of the conservation programs and increased the subsidy cap to $360,000. It also reinstated food stamps for legal immigrants and a wide range of price supports, and authorized a new $1 billion dairy subsidy for threeand- a-half years. Progressives, however, could not agree with the other changes-especially the higher subsidy cap, which they felt helped large farms at taxpayer expense-and voted "no." Even so, the bill passed by a wide margin, 280-141.

The inability of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to prevent the September 11th hijackers from entering the country left most in Congress eager to reform the agency. A bill in the House with broad bipartisan support split the INS into two bureaus and placed it in a new Agency for Immigration Affairs. Issa (R-CA) proposed an amendment to this bill that would have excluded employees of the new agency from civil service protections, which meant they could be fired at will and would be left with little recourse against disciplinary actions in general. Progressives opposed this amendment, because they felt there was no need to undo hardfought protections for federal employees in order to make the agency function. Most members of the House agreed, and the amendment was rejected 145-272.

The scandal at Enron had been particularly bad because the company's auditing firm, Arthur Anderson, ignored accounting improprieties in Enron's books in order to keep Enron as a business consulting client. To address this sort of problem, Republicans in the House proposed a bill that would establish an auditing oversight board that would set rules for the industry. The bill also directed this oversight board to ban any firm from simultaneously providing business consulting and auditing services to the same company. Progressives and Democrats in general felt this legislation did not go far enough. LaFalce (D-NY) proposed a substitute version that would have established a public regulator to oversee audits, banned financial analysts from owning stock in the companies they covered, established a number of new restrictions on companies and the firms that audit them, and imposed tougher penalties for violations. When offered, this substitute was voted down. Undeterred, LaFalce offered essentially the same language again, this time in the form of a motion to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that the language be added. Progressives supported this motion as they had supported the original substitute, but their position faired to better this time. The motion to recommit was rejected, 205-222.

The scandal at Enron served as a clarion call to those who sought to reform the financial auditing system. When auditing Enron's books, Anderson had looked the other way on accounting improprieties in order to keep its lucrative consulting relationship with the company. To prevent this scandal and others like it, House Republicans proposed a reform bill that established an accounting oversight board with powers to set some rules, and they directed this new board to ban an accounting firm from simultaneously consulting and auditing for the same company. Progressives and Democrats in general felt this did not go far enough. LaFalce (D-NY) proposed a substitute reform bill that created a public regulator to oversee audits, banned financial analysts from owning stock in the companies they covered, established a number of new restrictions on companies and the firms that audit them, and imposed tougher penalties for violations. Progressives favored this tougher approach because they believed the private auditing system was broken and allowed executives to hide a company's problems. Virtually all other Democrats agreed with them, but Republicans were determined not to regulate more than they felt necessary. On an almost perfect party-line vote, LaFalce's substitute was rejected, 202-219.

When the Anderson accounting firm audited Enron's books, they looked the other way on a number of accounting irregularities so they could continue consulting for Enron on the business side. This scandal, and several others like it, encouraged Congress to toughen regulatory oversight of the accounting profession. House Republicans proposed a reform bill that would establish a new oversight board and ban companies from both auditing and consulting for the same company. But many Democrats-including most Progressives-felt this did not go far enough. Kucinich (D-OH) proposed a substitute version that would establish a Federal Bureau of Audits that would audit all publicly traded companies' financial statements, replacing the private system in place. The bureau's employees would be subject to conflict-of-interest regulations, and the bureau itself would be independent with full powers of investigation. Progressives supported this idea as a more reliable way to validate a company's financial performance, but it was generally unpopular in the House as a whole because the new Bureau of Audits would effectively replace the private auditing industry. The substitute was rejected, 39-381.

The farm bill authorizes a wide range of agricultural programs, and must be reauthorized every few years. Reauthorization was required by 2002, and the House and Senate both passed their own versions. This required a "conference committee" of negotiators from each body to resolve differences and produce a single version of the bill. The Senate version of the bill authorized food stamps for a variety of legal immigrants, but the version that passed the House did not include this provision. Baca (D-CA) moved to instruct the negotiators-"conferees"-from the House to accept this food stamp provision. Progressives approved of this motion, because they approved of the food stamp program and felt there was no reason why it should not apply to needy immigrants as well as citizens. They voted "yes," and the motion to instruct passed by a wide margin, 244-171.

The farm bill is a large piece of legislation that authorizes a wide range of agricultural programs. It had last been passed in 1996, and by 2002 was due to be reauthorized. Versions of the reauthorization had passed the House and Senate, and negotiators-"conferees"-from each body were hammering out the details of the final package. The Senate version lifted a ban on private financing for agricultural sales to Cuba. Progressives supported this move because they felt the ban only hurt American and Cuban farmers and businesses and was unlikely to undermine the Castro regime. Dooley (D-CA) moved to instruct the House conferees to agree to the Senate provisions lifting the ban. Progressives favored lifting the ban, so they also favored this motion to instruct. The motion passed by a wide margin, 273-143.

The $1.35 trillion tax cut Republicans pushed through Congress in 2001 was set to expire in 2010. Republicans proposed making the tax cuts permanent by eliminating this "sunset" provision. They accompanied this change with a series of adjustments to the IRS procedures for penalties, interest, and tax collection that were meant to ease the requirements on taxpayers. The Republican's proposal was also attached to a bill that would accelerate an increase in the tax credit for adoption. But the focus was on making the tax cuts permanent: the underlying adoption provision was merely a procedural vehicle to allow the tax cuts to be adopted without permitting much in the way of debate from Democrats. Progressives opposed the tax cuts because they felt they were heavily slanted toward the rich and should not be made permanent. The voted "no" on the motion to remove the sunset provision, but the motion was agreed to 229-198.

Republicans passed a $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001 that had a 2010 expiration date. Republicans wanted to eliminate that expiration, and they proposed it in a bill that also accelerated an adoption tax credit and made changes to enforcement procedures in the IRS. Progressives opposed making the tax cut permanent because they believed the original cut heavily favored the rich and so should not be extended. House bills usually come with a "rule" that establishes the procedures for debate. Opponents of a bill tend to oppose the rule as well, because the bill cannot be considered if its rule is voted down. For this reason, Progressives voted against the tax cut bill's rule. But despite being joined in opposition by all other Democrats, they were outnumbered: the rule passed, 218-205.

In 2001, the Bush administration had pushed a $1.35 trillion tax cut through Congress, but these cuts expired in 2010. A major goal of House Republicans since then had been to make these cuts permanent, and they proposed such a change in a bill that included an accelerated adoption tax credit and various changes in IRS tax collection procedure to ease the burden on taxpayers. Progressives argued that the tax cuts from 2001 heavily favored the rich, so they opposed this bill to extend them. In the House, most bills are accompanied by a "rule": a set of instructions for the conduct of debate. The rule must be voted on before a bill can be considered, so it is common for opponents of a bill to oppose the rule as well. For this reason, Progressives opposed the rule for the bill to make the tax cuts permanent. Furthermore, Progressives voted "no" when Hastings (R-WA) moved to order the previous question-a way of cutting off debate and calling for a vote on the rule-because they opposed the bill and its rule and so did not want to see either one come to a vote. Despite their opposition, the motion passed 219-206.

Republicans had long been opponents of the IRS, which they saw as overzealous and even illegitimate. Accordingly, they proposed a bill that would ease a wide range of mechanisms for enforcing tax collection. The bill they offered weakened or waived many first-time penalties for individual violations, extended the deadline for electronic filers to April 30, and added $3 million to the $6 million authorized for low-income taxpayer clinics. Progressives and Democrats in general did not disagree with these changes. But Republicans also added a provision that exempted certain independent political groups from reporting their expenditures and donors. Supporters of campaign finance reform-including Progressives-felt this opened a huge loophole in the campaign finance law that had been passed only the month before. To prevent campaign finance supporters from changing the tax bill to remove the disclosure exemption, the Republican leadership proposed the bill under suspension of the rules-a special status that forbids amendments but requires a two-thirds vote for passage. Their strategy was to force members to vote for a popular measure despite disagreeing with one of its provisions. Their plan was flawed, however, because support for campaign finance reform was too strong. The tax bill failed to receive a simple majority, let alone the two-thirds vote it required. It fell, 205-219.

A bill had been proposed in the House to establish a government-exchange program that would allow private-sector technology workers to work for two years in the federal government and public-sector technology employees to work for two years in a private company. Progressives worried that these private employees would access federal trade secrets and other proprietary information that they could later use for personal enrichment. Progressives also worried that the exchange program imposed no training requirements on the federal workers who participated and established no guarantees that the exchange would be one-for-one. This raised the possibility that federal employees would work for the private sector at public expense, without an equal number of private-sector employees returning the favor. Waxman (D-CA) tried to address the first problem by proposing an amendment that blocked private employees' access to sensitive information while they were participating in the program. The amendment also added $7 million to train technology workers for the federal government and include the exchange program under the requirements of such a training program. However, the amendment could not overcome solid Republican opposition, and it fell 204-219.

The budget process starts off with the budget resolution, a broad blueprint for the coming year's spending and taxation. Republicans proposed a budget resolution for 2003 that stayed close to spending limits set by the White House and made permanent $353 billion of the previous year's temporary tax cuts. Progressives opposed this budget resolution because they felt the tax cuts were slanted toward the rich and because they believed more spending was needed on matters such as homeland security and a prescription drug benefit. Even so, they did not have the votes to defeat it: it passed on a perfect party-line vote, 213-206.

The budget resolution is the first step in establishing spending and revenue levels for the federal government. Though fundamentally non-binding, it serves as an outline of the individual taxing and spending decisions to come. Republicans submitted a budget resolution for 2003 that cut taxes and limited spending. In so doing they earned the determined opposition of Progressives, who felt taxes should remain at their current levels and spending should increase. Most bills considered by the House come with a set of rules for debate that must be voted on separately. Progressives opposed the rule for the budget resolution, partly because they opposed the bill itself and partly because the rule prevented them from offering any amendments to the budget. As a result, when the rule came up for a vote, they voted "no." However, their votes and the votes of all other Democrats were not enough, and the rule was adopted 222-206.

The first budgeting step for the federal government is passage of the budget resolution, a non-binding document that sets out broad spending and revenue totals for the coming year. The Republicans proposed a resolution for 2003 that devoted $353 billion to making permanent the previous year's temporary tax cuts, and that kept the government within strict spending limits. As with most legislation in the House, this budget resolution came with a corresponding resolution establishing the rules for debate on the measure. Opponents of a bill will usually oppose the bill's rule, because if the rule fails to pass the bill also dies. Progressives disliked both the tax cut and the spending limits in the Republican budget resolution, so they also opposed the rule. They were particularly opposed to the rule because it prevented them from amending the budget resolution in debate. Republicans had won an important victory on the rule when they won a motion for the previous question (see vote 75), a way of ending debate on the rule and calling it up for a vote. Defeating a previous motion question essentially turns debate on an issue over to opponents. Slaughter (D-NY) moved to reconsider this motion for the previous question, but Goss (RFL) countered with a motion to table (kill) Slaughter's motion. Progressives opposed Goss's motion to table because they supported Slaughter's motion to reconsider, opposed the previous question motion (and wanted another chance to vote it down), and opposed the rule which was the current matter for debate. In short, this elaborate series of parliamentary maneuvers all related to passing the rule, which was itself a stand-in for the budget resolution. Progressives voted "no" on Goss's motion to table, but they lost 222-206.

An important first step in the development of a budget is the budget resolution, a blueprint for overall spending and revenue in the coming year. The resolution provides some procedural incentives for staying within its dictates, but is fundamentally nonbinding and provides instead a forum for debate about large-scale government priorities. Republicans proposed a resolution for 2003 that made many of the temporary tax cuts from the previous year permanent and kept the government within tight spending limits. Progressives opposed both the tax cuts and the spending limits, so they opposed the resolution itself. In the House, most bills are accompanied by a set of rules for debate that must be voted on separately before consideration of the bill itself can begin. Progressives opposed this rule because they opposed the budget resolution itself, but also because the rule prevented them from offering any amendment to the resolution. To move this closed rule toward passage, Goss (R-FL) moved to order the previous question, which would end debate on the rule and call it up for a vote. Progressives opposed Goss's motion because they opposed the budget resolution and its rule, and so had no interest in seeing either come to a vote. They voted "no," but the motion passed anyway, 221-206.

Support was broad and bipartisan for a "two strikes and you're out" bill for repeat child sex offenders. Those convicted of a sex offense involving a child on federal property would be automatically sentenced to life in prison. Despite supporting the overall bill, Progressives worried that the impact of the law was uncertain. As such, they supported a Conyers (DMI) amendment that would require a report to Congress for each case sentenced under the new law: the range of possible sentences that would otherwise have applied, the actual sentence that would have been administered, and the race, ethnicity, gender, and age of the both the defendant and the victim. The amendment was adopted 259- 161. All but five Democrats voted in favor, as did a substantial 64 of 219 Republicans.

An important item on the conservative agenda was reform of the federal class action laws. Class action lawsuits-those involving a large number of plaintiffs-have traditionally been easier to bring and win in state court. Republicans felt more of these suits should end up in federal court, where the chances of a pro-corporate decision were greater. They proposed a bill that would give federal courts original jurisdiction over class actions where the total damages exceeded $2 million and any of the plaintiffs lived in different states. In existing law, federal courts considered only cases where each plaintiff stood to win at least $75,000, and in which the defendant and lead plaintiff lived in different states. Progressives opposed this bill as a way to stifle one of the most important means of holding corporations accountable for their actions. However, their opposition was not enough, and the bill passed the House 233-190.

Republicans had long felt that there were too many class-action lawsuits against corporations. Progressives favored these lawsuits because they were often the only way to hold a corporation accountable for its actions, but Republicans not only opposed many of these lawsuits on principle, they also felt it was too easy to bring them in state court where the odds of a decision favoring the plaintiff were higher. As such, the Republican House leadership drafted a bill to require that more of these suits be brought in federal court. Sandlin (D-TX) moved to recommit (send back) this bill to the committee that drafted it with instructions that it forbid defendants who had knowingly committed a terrorist act from moving a class action suit to federal court. Most motions to recommit include the word "forthwith," which in practice means the bill is simply amended and then returned for immediate reconsideration without returning to the committee at all. Sandlin's motion did not include this word, so it involved sending the bill back to the actual committee for reconsideration, which would require starting the debate on the bill over again on a different day. Progressives supported terrorist provisions of this motion to recommit, but they were even more in favor of stalling forward progress on the bill itself, so they voted in favor. However, the motion failed 191- 235.

Republicans disliked the large number of class-action lawsuits brought in state courts, where the outcomes more often favored the plaintiffs and punished corporations. They drafted a bill to require that more of these suits be moved to federal court. Moreover, the bill as written stipulated that any case taken up by the federal courts and then dismissed by federal standards of procedure could not then be tried in state court under state laws. Frank (D-MA) proposed an amendment that would ensure that suits not certified as federal class actions could still be tried in state court. Furthermore, his amendment provided that the case could not later be moved to federal court unless it met current "diversity" standards for such a move-that is, that the litigants hailed from enough separate jurisdictions to warrant the move. Progressives supported the amendment as a way to move more cases back to state court and to forestall what they saw as the real motive of the bill-discouraging class action lawsuits-but it was rejected 191-234.

One item on the Republicans' agenda was class-action lawsuit reform. Republicans disliked the power of class action suits to constrain corporate behavior, and they felt these lawsuits were particularly easy to bring in state court. They drafted a bill that would require many more of these suits to be filed in federal court, where the outcome was less likely to favor the plaintiffs. Conyers (D-MI) proposed an amendment that would obstruct a particular form of manipulation of this system: businesses that incorporated a new company abroad, acquired themselves with that new company, and then used the new cross-national character of their firm as a reason to move a class-action suit to federal court. Conyers's amendment would prevent the move to federal court in such circumstances. Progressives supported the amendment as a way to push more cases back to state court where the chances for plaintiffs were better, but the amendment was rejected 202-223.

Republicans believed that corporations faced too many class action lawsuits, and that these lawsuits were especially easy to bring in state court. As a result, they proposed a bill that would require more of these cases to go to federal court, where the chances of a pro-corporate decision were greater. Lofgren (D-CA) worried that the bill prevented district and city attorneys from filing public interest suits in state court. Her amendment would allow local prosecutors to bring civil (i.e., private) suits to enforce antitrust and consumer protection laws in state court. Progressives supported this change because the feared the law as currently written would discourage pro-consumer lawsuits in states whose relevant laws were stronger than the federal version. However, the amendment was rejected 194-231.

In the shadow of class action shareholder lawsuits against Enron and other corporations, House Republicans struggled to pass a measure to make such lawsuits less attractive to plaintiffs. Republicans complained that state laws made class action lawsuits easy to bring and more likely to bear fruit, and that plaintiffs could "venue shop" for the state that would make the outcome most advantageous to them. To address this issue, Republicans proposed a bill that would make it easier to file a class action suit in federal court, where the chances of a pro-corporate decision were greater. Progressives and Democrats in general argued that because class-action suits were often the only means of calling corporations to task for their behavior, permissive state laws were to be encouraged, not circumvented. They also noted that, in the absence of class-action litigation, Enron's employee shareholders would have lost their retirement savings with no recourse. In the House, the rules for debate on a bill must ordinarily be voted on separately. Opponents of a bill with try to block the rule in hopes of sinking the bill itself. For this reason, Progressives opposed the rule for the class action lawsuit bill. Progressives also stood opposed when Republicans moved to order the previous question-a way of ending debate about the rule and holding a vote on it-because voting down the previous question motion would essentially vote down the rule, and the bill itself. Despite their opposition and the opposition of all but six Democrats, the motion passed, 221-198. The rule was then agreed to on a voice (unrecorded) vote.

In the spring of 2002, both Republicans and Democrats agreed that the economy was weak enough to warrant an extension of unemployment benefits. Along with the unemployment benefits, Republicans also added a number of "stimulus" measures in the form of temporary business tax breaks. In the House, passing most bills requires separately passing a measure establishing the rules for debate. In the vote at issue here, Republicans moved to order the previous question-which ends debate and calls for a final vote-on the rules for debate on the bill extending unemployment benefits. Progressives supported the underlying bill-despite its business tax breaks-but they still voted "no" on the previous question motion. Had they prevailed on this procedural matter, it would have handed control of the floor debate to the Democrats, and the chances for a more progressive bill would have increased substantially. That said, they did not prevail, and the previous question motion passed, 217-192.

In the House of Representatives, the rules for debating a bill ordinarily must be passed separately from the bill itself. However, it is possible to pass a bill under "suspension of the rules," which limits floor speeches and prevents amendments, but also requires a two-thirds vote for passage. Republicans proposed such a suspension the rules for a series of bills considered on March 6. Progressives and Democrats in general opposed this suspension, because it applied to the Republican leadership's version of a bill to extend unemployment benefits. There was broad bipartisan consensus on this extension, but Republicans had added to it an "economic stimulus" package that Progressives complained was slanted too strongly toward businesses and had little hope of passage in the Senate. Under suspension of the rules, many members would feel compelled to vote for the whole bill in order to get the unemployment extension, because they would not have the power to amend the bill to rid it of the stimulus package. When the Republicans moved to order the previous question-a way of ending debate and forcing a vote on whether or not to suspend the rules-Progressives voted "no," because they did not support the suspension and so did not favor voting on it. On an almost strictly party-line vote (one Democrat supported the motion), the motion passed, 218- 191, and the Progressive position failed.

Many Republicans and even a substantial number of Democrats were unhappy with the telecommunications reform passed in 1996. The 1996 law excluded the regional Bell phone companies from participating in the high-speed Internet or long-distance phone markets until they could show they had opened their local phone lines to competition. Opponents of this regulation noted that cable companies could compete for broadband with cable modems while cell phone providers could compete for local competition without any concessions from the Baby Bells. They proposed a bill that would essentially lift the requirement off the backs of the Baby Bells and allow them unfettered access to the broadband market. Progressives opposed this bill as a handout to the regional Bell companies and an abandonment of the goal of real competition in local phone service. They voted against the bill, but it passed 273-157.

House Republicans differed from essentially all other actors on Capitol Hill about how to address the economy's stagnation. They felt a package that both extended unemployment benefits and provided a series of tax breaks to businesses and individuals was the most effective means to help forestall deeper economic problems. Democrats and Senate Republicans agreed with House Republicans about the unemployment benefits, but disliked the tax breaks. Democrats-including Progressives-felt that the tax breaks were too heavily weighted toward business. Moreover, both Democrats and Senate Republicans believed the prospects in the Senate for the tax breaks were dim, so they felt the breaks not be coupled with the unemployment benefits because they did not want to jeopardize passage of the former with the latter. Nonetheless, House Republicans pressed forward with both the unemployment benefits and the tax breaks. Thomas (R-CA) moved to concur with the Senate's version of unemployment extension-an additional 13 weeks of coverage-while adding the tax breaks as well. Progressives opposed the tax breaks, so they voted against the motion. Despite their opposition and the opposition of all but 10 Democrats, the motion passed, 225-199.

Though existing campaign finance regulations restricted individual political donations to $1000 per candidate per election cycle, they permitted unrestricted donations to parties for the purpose of "party-building" activities. However, the definition of "party-building" had been broadened through a series of court cases to include almost any issue advocacy advertisement. This "soft money" exception had become a common way for corporations and wealthy individuals to give large sums of money to political campaigns. Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) proposed a reform bill to close this loophole and reduce the influence of money in politics. The bill banned soft money donations to the national parties entirely, but allowed up to $10,000 in donations to state parties for get-out-the-vote and voter registration drives. The bill also banned issue advertisements that targeted a specific candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election. To compensate for the absence of the soft money option, the bill also doubled the maximum individual donation to $2000, and indexed it for inflation. Progressives supported the bill as a meaningful effort to clean the political system of corporate money. They voted "yes" along with 41 Republicans and all but 12 Democrats, and the bill passed, 240-189. Upon passage, its next stop was the Senate.

Over the course of the 1990s, "soft money"-donations to parties not covered by caps on individual donations-had become one of the most significant avenues for corporations and wealthy individuals to gain access to the political system. Parties were supposed to use the money for "party-building" activities, but they had found ways to use it to support individual campaigns while staying within the letter of the law. The Shays-Meehan reform bill was designed to eliminate the soft money loophole, but it had to survive a series of alternative proposals offered by opponents of the bill. One of these-proposed by Ney (R-OH)-was not an amendment but an entire substitute for the bill under consideration. Unlike the Shays-Meehan version, it restricted soft money donations to the national parties rather than banning them entirely. Progressives opposed the bill because they supported aggressive reform and saw the Ney substitute as a watered-down version of Shays-Meehan that would complicate passage in the Senate. With the help of "no" votes from Progressives the Ney substitute was rejected, 181-248.

To opponents of the influence of money in politics, one of the biggest problems in the 1990s was the "soft money" loophole in existing campaign finance law. The loophole permitted corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid caps on individual donations by giving to parties instead. Parties were supposed to use soft money for "party building," but they had found ways to use it to support individual candidates while staying within the letter of the law. Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) proposed a bill that closed this loophole, but to pass it needed to survive attempts by opponents to add unfriendly amendments. Such amendments aimed to peel votes away from the fragile majority coalition and complicate passage of the bill in the Senate. Kingston (R-GA) proposed one of these amendments: a provision forbidding national parties from using certain funds to pay for the construction costs of office buildings. Progressives saw this as an attempt to undermine the reform bill; because they supported reform, they opposed this amendment. Even so, the amendment passed, 232-196.

Reformers of the campaign finance regulatory system sought to close the so-called "soft money" loophole: the provision in existing law that permitted unrestricted donations to political parties, even as individual donations were restricted to $1,000 per candidate per election cycle. The parties were supposed to use the money for "party-building," but they had found ways to use it to support individual candidates while staying within the letter of the law. Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) proposed a bill that closed this loophole, but to get it through the House they needed to avoid unfriendly amendments from the opposition meant to fracture the fragile pro-reform majority and complicate the bill's passage in the Senate. One such amendmentproposed by Reynolds (R-NY)-sought to change the date on which the bill would become effective. Shays and Meehan had specifically placed the effective date after the coming election to earn votes and save candidates and parties from changing strategies in the middle of an election season; the Reynolds amendment disregarded that logic and made the effective date the day after the bill passed, thus ensuring that many members would have a reason not to support the bill on final passage. Progressives opposed this amendment because they supported reform and saw the amendment as an attempt to undermine that reform. With Progressives voting "no," the amendment was rejected 190-238.

The political system of the 1990s became awash in so-called "soft money": unrestricted donations to political parties to circumvent caps on donations from individuals. Parties were supposed to use the money for "party-building" activities, but they had found ways to support individual candidates with soft money while staying within the letter of the law. Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) advocated a reform bill that banned soft money donations to national parties. The bill had majority support in the House, but needed to survive unfriendly amendments by opponents, who sought to change the bill in ways that would peel away votes from the majority coalition and complicate passage in the Senate. One of these amendments was proposed by Wicker (R-MS), and would have banned non-citizens from donating to federal campaigns. Progressives opposed this amendment not only on its face, but also because they supported reform and knew that the amendment's ulterior motive was anti-reform. They voted "no" and helped sink the amendment, 160-268.

During the 1990s, corporations and wealthy individuals had learned to skirt restrictions on the size of donations to political campaigns by giving unrestricted "soft money" to political parties instead. The parties were supposed to use the money for "partybuilding" activities, but they had found ways to use it to support individual candidates while staying within the letter of the law. To address this issue, Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) pushed a reform bill that banned soft money donations to the national parties, though the bill also permitted such donations to state parties for the sake of get-out-the-vote and voter registration drives. Opponents of the reform bill-mostly Republicans-sought to weigh it down with unfriendly amendments that would weaken support for the overall bill and complicate passage in the Senate. The strategy was dangerous for the bill's proponents because the pro-reform coalition was fragile, making it easy to peel away votes on specific issues. This vote was on one such amendment: a proposal to ban all soft money, not just donations to the national parties. Progressives opposed this amendment, because they supported reform and knew it was simply a way to undermine the reform effort. The amendment was rejected, 185-244.

During the 1990s, "soft money" donations had become the way for corporations and wealthy individuals to give unrestricted amounts of money to parties and politicians. Parties were supposed to use soft money for "party-building" activities, but they had found ways to use it to support individual candidates while staying within the letter of the law. The Shays-Meehan campaign reform bill closed this loophole by banning soft money, but in order to pass it needed to survive a number of unfriendly amendments proposed by opponents. These amendments were meant to fracture the majority in favor of the bill and to make passage in the Senate more complicated. In this case, Combest (R-TX) proposed an amendment that would exempt advocacy of issues related to workers, farmers, and families from advertising restrictions in the bill. Progressives opposed this amendment because they knew it was meant to weigh down the bill itself: the breadth of the exempted categories exacted maximum damage to the bill's substance while gathering as many supporters of the amendment as possible. With the help of "no" votes from Progressives, the amendment fell, 191-237.

Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (DMA) proposed a bill to close a loophole in the existing campaign finance law that allowed wealthy donors to give unrestricted amounts to political parties. The parties were supposed to use this "soft money" for "party-building" activities, but they had found ways to use the money to support individual campaigns while staying within the letter of the law. To pass, the Shays-Meehan bill had to survive attempts by opponents to add unfriendly amendments designed to split the majority or complicate passage in the Senate. Opponents hoped to add enough of these amendments to peel away votes and destroy the bill's majority support. This particular unfriendly amendment, proposed by Johnson (R-TX), would have exempted advocacy for veterans' or seniors' issues from the advertising restrictions. Progressives knew this was designed to weigh down the bill: the breadth of the exempted categories exacted maximum damage to the bill's substance while gathering as many supporters of the amendment as possible. Progressives supported campaign finance reform so they opposed this attempt to kill it. With Progressives voting "no," the amendment was rejected 200-228.

One of the largest loopholes in existing campaign finance law was the so-called "soft money" exemption: a category of donations to political parties that had no restriction on size. Parties were supposed to use the money for "party building," but they had found ways to support individual candidates with the money while staying within the letter of the law. As a result, corporations and wealthy individuals had long used the loophole to influence politics. The Shays-Meehan reform bill banned soft money and made some restrictions on advertising, but to pass it needed to avoid unfriendly amendments designed either to fracture the majority in favor of the bill or to complicate passage in the Senate. Those who proposed these "poison pill" amendments did not necessarily support their substance: they suggested the amendments only as a means to sink the larger bill. This was one of those amendments: proposed by Watts (R-OK), it would have exempted advocacy on civil rights issues from the advertising restrictions in the bill. Progressives supported advocacy on civil rights, but they knew this move was designed to derail reform, so they opposed the amendment. Their "no" votes helped reject the amendment, 185-237.

For years, corporations and wealthy individuals had skirted campaign finance restrictions on the size of donations by giving "soft money" to parties, which was unregulated. The parties were supposed to use the money for "party building," but they had found ways to support individual candidates with the funds while staying within the letter of the law. Reformers sought to close this loophole with the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, which banned soft money donations to the national parties. Opponents of the bill knew it had majority support, so they tried to attach unfriendly amendments that would complicate the bill's passage in the Senate and peel away support for the bill itself. The most significant of these was an amendment by Pickering (R-MS) that would have exempted advocacy for the right to bear arms from advertising restrictions in the bill. The move brought many Southern Democrats over to the opposition, and produced the closest vote of any amendment to the bill: 209 for to 219 against. Progressives voted against for two reasons: because they opposed giving special protection to supporters of the NRA, and because they supported reform and opposed any attempts to derail it.

This vote was part of the battle to pass campaign finance reform. The reform bill was meant to eliminate "soft money": unregulated donations to parties from corporations and wealthy individuals. Soft money was supposed to be used for "party-building" activities, but parties had discovered ways to support individual campaigns while staying within the letter of the law. Though the reform bill was not perfect, Progressives supported it as a meaningful attempt to reduce the influence of money in politics. The bill had been carefully crafted to ensure a majority and to reduce complications in the Senate as much as possible. Opponents of reform knew that a majority supported the bill, so their strategy was to bog it down with unfriendly amendments that would either peel away votes from the majority or make it more difficult to reconcile the House version with the Senate version. This was one of those amendments: it would have stated that no provisions in the bill could violate the First Amendment's protection for free speech. The statement would have provided ammunition for those who wanted to contest parts of the bill in court on First Amendment grounds. Progressives voted "no" on this unfriendly amendment, and it was rejected, 188-237.

Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) had been pressing to reform the campaign finance laws for many years. Their goal was to eliminate so-called "soft money": money that avoided caps on the size of donations by exploiting a loophole in existing law. Soft money had become a way for corporations and wealthy individuals to give hundred-thousand and even million-dollar donations to political parties, who would in turn use it to support individual candidates. Shays and Meehan had brought their bill to a vote in previous Congresses, and they used a previous version of the bill as a starting point for debate. The vote at hand was to replace this previous version with the latest version, which included provisions designed to earn votes and ensure a smooth passage through the Senate. Progressives supported this version, because they supported removing big-money donations from politics and they knew this was the vehicle for achieving that end. With their support, the substitute version passed, 240-191, and became the default version of the bill.

During the 1990s, the political system had become awash in so-called "soft money": unrestricted donations from corporations and wealthy individuals that exploited a loophole in campaign finance laws. Soft money was originally intended for "party-building activities," but parties had begun to use it to support individual candidates. Reform had been proposed before, and a previous version of the reform bill was used a starting point for debate. Under the rules of debate, Republicans were permitted two "substitutes": wholesale replacements for the bill under consideration. This was the first of these substitutes, and the most dangerous for supporters of reform: a version that banned all soft money, not just soft money for national parties, and that even forbade state parties from using soft money donations for get-out-the-vote and voter registration drives. Progressives supported reform, so they opposed this substitute. The substitute would never have made it through the Senate, and it might not have made it through the House. This made a vote for it a vote against reform, because everyone involved understood it would undermine the larger effort to pass a bill. With Progressives voting "no," the substitute was rejected, 179-249.

After Congress passed Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, Progressives and many Democrats immediately began talking of partial repeal. The actual package of cuts was temporary and it phased in gradually over the course of a decade. This provided plenty of opportunity for Progressives and other Democrats to repeal pieces of the tax cut along the way. To help protect the tax cut, Weller (R-IL) moved to express the non-binding "sense of the House" that the tax cut should not be suspended or repealed. Earlier, the House had voted to suspend the rules for the day, which meant debate on any matter was limited and a two-thirds vote was required for passage. These special restrictions applied to Weller's "sense of the House" motion as well: without two-thirds support, or 278 votes, the motion would fall. Progressives opposed Weller's motion because they opposed the original 2001 tax cut. Though Weller's motion received majority support, the 235-181 vote fell short of the 278 needed. The motion failed.