Progressives failed 163-205 in their efforts to recommit the FY05 legislative appropriations branch spending bill (H.R. 4755) to its committee of origin. The largely bipartisan underlying $2.7 billion spending bill contains essentially non-controversial items funding the House of Representatives and all the various support agencies, including the Capitol Hill Police, the Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office and the General Accounting Office. However, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) during floor debate sought to have the spending bill recommitted, or sent back, to the House Committee on Appropriations, with instructions to include in the bill language imposing a $25,000 limit on the amount that any single committee can spend on postage during FY05. As with most motions to recommit, Sherman's motion failed mostly along party lines. But he argued that postage expenses have been going up at an extraordinary rate, with one House committee seeking, albeit unsuccessfully, $500,000 in postage just for the 108th Congress - a request representing a massive increase over what that committee had requested for the 107th Congress. Sherman suggested these funds would constitute a political "slush fund," from which committee chairs, currently all Republican, could draw in sending mail out to individual committee members' districts - either in the form of attacks or praise. "It is just around the corner," Sherman warned. "This is the one chance we have in this House to vote to draw the line." conservative critics of the amendment termed it "ridiculous," noting that there is "no way" postage accounts would ever reach into the millions. They also asserted that Republican chairmen need, from time to time, to send mail into Democratic districts for various bipartisan reasons, including apprising constituents of upcoming field hearings.

Progressives failed to counter an amendment authored by Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), which would ensure that no money appropriated in FY05 to fund the Commerce, Justice and State departments (H.R. 4754) would be used "to promote legalization of prostitution or sex trafficking," and that no funds would be allotted to "any group or organization that does not have a policy that is explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking." The House voted 306-113, notwithstanding arguments advanced by progressives, who suggested the Commerce, Justice and State spending measure was a strange venue for legislation dealing with sex trafficking and prostitution. They also expressed concern about the broader ramifications of the Akin language, noting that it feasibly could be used to block funding for any program that did not have an explicit anti-prostitution statement. Conservative backers of the Akin amendment said the language was aimed at making "crystal clear" Congress' position that a $15 billion spending package it approved in 2003 to combat AIDS and other infectious diseases abroad would not benefit any groups actively promoting the sex trade. However, progressives argued that the amendment was overbroad with unintended consequences, and could be construed to block federal and state recipients of CJS funding - everyone from local police departments to the federal courts - unless they have explicit policies opposing such practices. Of particular sensitivity to progressives was the notion that the Akin language also could be used to hinder anyone seeking a federal grant under the Commerce, Justice and State funding bill to do medical research unless first signing off on a specific policy statement opposing these practices.

Progressives in the House prevailed 281-137, helping to advance an amendment offered by Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.), to the FY05 Commerce, Justice, State spending bill (H.R. 4754), over the objections of conservative members, who complained it was a "fatally flawed" measure better suited to the "Cold War" era. Manzullo's stated objective in offering the amendment was to help small businesses by shifting $79 million from other accounts to the Small Business Administration "7(a)" flagship guaranteed lending program, to help keep fees assessed to lenders and borrowers at current rates. Without the amendment, Manzullo insisted, small business borrowers and lenders will face a fee or tax increase based on the amount of loans starting Oct. 1, 2005, by as much as 100 percent. Conservatives argued, however, that the reallocation of this money to the SBA would drain critical federal resources needed to fight what President Bush has designated the war on terrorism. They were especially concerned that the amendment would cut by a little over $10 million funding for the National Endowment For Democracy, a controversial organization set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan to "support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts," but which critics say is nothing more than a costly program that takes U.S. taxpayer funds to promote dictatorial regimes abroad. While affirming their support for the SBA 7(a) program, conservatives also balked at $60 million in cuts the amendment would require of the Justice Department, another agency spearheading the Bush administration's anti-terror efforts. One conservative in opposing the proposal said, "If my colleagues believe that the cold war still exists, they could probably make an argument for this amendment. This is crazy at this time to act like somehow this is pre-September 11."

This vote was on a Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) motion to recommit (send back to the drafting committee) HR 4281, legislation allowing small business to band together as a means of lowering the cost of providing their employees with health insurance. Her motion failed 196-218. McCarthy's motion to recommit would have required the drafting committee to amend the bill with a provision ensuring that the bill does not preempt state regulations regarding coverage for breast cancer, pregnancy and childbirth, and well-child OB/GYN services. Progressives, who said the underlying legislation, HR 4281, would undermine state efforts to ensure basic health care to their residents, sought to preserve the services outlined in McCarthy's motion. Conservatives declined to engage on the specifics of the McCarthy motion, however, arguing only that the new health associations created under HR 4281 would be exempt from state insurance mandates "exactly like large company plans and union plans all over the country." Conservatives argued that health insurance mandates "drive up" the cost of health insurance, and, when the cost of health insurance goes up for small employers, it is their employees who lose coverage. Rejection of McCarthy's motion means certain women's related healthcare services would not be guaranteed insurance coverage under the bill.

House progressives backed this Democratic substitute offered by Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) to the conservative-backed HR 4281, legislation designed to enable small businesses to join together to form ``associations'' that will leverage their collective buying power to get lower-cost health insurance for their employees. Although progressives said they supported the concept of companies working together collectively to control costs, they objected to H.R. 4281's preempting of state laws on insurance regulation, by its undermining of individual state minimum coverage levels. Most states require that any health plan cover some basic items such as mammograms, contraception, prostate cancer screenings, and many mental health services. However, H.R. 4281 would allow these new "associations"' to avoid having to offer these basic benefits, to the detriment of policyholders, progressives said. The Kind bill, progressives argued, will not preempt state law, maintaining the kind of minimum benefit levels that ensure quality coverage for beneficiaries and their dependents. The Kind substitute also commits actual federal funds -- $50 billion allocated in the budget -- to form these so-called Small Employer Health Benefit plans, creating a "realistic, workable" way for small businesses to use their collective buying power to lower costs and increase coverage, progressives said. Conservatives argued that the Kind bill "has the government" creating these new large insurance pools - something conservatives said would inevitably lead to the federal government imposing certain insurance coverage requirements, something conservatives said they would dare not risk. Conservatives also objected to the $50 billion in "taxpayer funds" that would be needed under the Kind bill to set up and to provide subsidies, while the underlying bill has no federal taxpayer money involved in it, conservatives noted. Kind's substitute failed 193-224, however, meaning state minimum coverage requirements would be undermined under this bill and supplanted with new coverage standards determined by these new small business-run health trade associations.

Calling the conservative-backed budget resolution (S CON RES 95) fiscally irresponsible, House progressives supported this Democratic motion instructing House members working to square their bill with the Senate's to adopt the Senate's position that tax cuts and other pending contributing to raising the deficit should have corresponding offsets somewhere else in the budget. This philosophy is summed up as a "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO), but this Democratic request was narrowly defeated in the House 207-211. Progressives argued that the motion was the key to budget discipline, something conservatives have traditionally claimed to support. And progressives noted that such discipline was ever more important as the Baby Boomer generation ages and entitlement spending is expected to surge. But conservatives argued that the concept of PAYGO "is really fundamentally flawed economic policy." Conservatives said the Democratic motion makes an underlying assumption that for every $1 of tax relief, there will be a corresponding $1 reduction in federal revenue. But that only holds true, conservatives added, if one has no faith in the ability of the "free market" system to make America strong economically. Conservatives asserted that the Senate PAYGO language will only cause tax increases in the future. As one Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a conservative opposed to the motion put it, "We do not need to have a Senate rule, a rule from the other body to tie our hands for tax reform, tax relief [and] tax simplification in the future."

A large majority of House members, over the objections of progressives, voted in favor of this Bush administration-backed legislation, HR 4275, which would make permanent certain soon-to-expire income tax breaks for middle and lower income earners. Conservatives argued that if Congress fails to act to pass this legislation, Americans will see their taxes increase starting next year. But progressives attacked the plan on two fronts, stating that the measure, while helping many lower and middle class individuals, also benefits upper income earners. Moreover, they said, the measure comes with a $218 billion price tag, for which conservatives failed to specify how to pay. It is a continuation of what progressives labeled as irresponsible fiscal policy, especially at a time when the nation faces ballooning deficits with record low revenues coming in to the federal government, progressives argued. Progressives agreed that low- and middle-income Americans deserve this tax break. But, they added, Republicans are unwilling to pay for it in the form of revenue raisers such as tax increases elsewhere which means federal budget deficit will grow. The measure was approved 344-76.

Conservatives succeeded in defeating this progressive-backed Democratic substitute bill to a White House supported measure (HR 4275) which would make permanent certain income tax cuts on middle and lower-income individuals. While agreeing that the lower and middle class individuals who would be helped by that adjustment deserved such relief, progressives took issue with conservatives' failure to match the tax breaks with corresponding spending offsets in the budget - especially given that HR 4275 would benefit some upper income individuals as well, they said. The substitute legislation, offered by Rep. Tanner (D-Tenn.) also would permanently extend the same income tax breaks addressed under HR 4275, but would do so in what progressives labeled a "responsible manner" - by taxing households making over $1 million an additional 1.9 percent. In so doing, they argued, the Tanner substitute provides "a reasonable offset" to benefit more American families without burdening their children with added debt that they will have to pay off. Conservatives objected on the grounds that the Tanner substitute would try to pay for their substitute with a "tax increase" to which conservatives are opposed on principle. Opponents of Tanner's substitute also sought to poke holes in progressives' claim that Tanner's bill would pay for itself by levying a tax increase on rich people. Rather, conservatives said, half of those filers in the tax bracket addressed under HR 4275 are small businesses, which conservatives called the engine of economic growth in America. Tanner's substitute failed 190-227, meaning the underlying bill fails to provide a payment mechanism to offset making these particular income tax benefits permanent, therefore the wealthy were spared any additional taxation in order to fund tax breaks for less fortunate individuals.

For the fifth time in a little over a year, conservatives in the House sought to move medical malpractice liability reform legislation that they claim is needed to rein in "frivolous" lawsuits and exorbitant awards that are sending malpractice insurance premiums for doctors sky high and thereby driving doctors out of their profession -- especially those practicing particularly high-risk specialties like obstetrics. Conservatives laid this medical insurance crisis at the doorstep of "unlimited lawsuits", which they say are devastating our nation's health care system to the detriment of patients everywhere. Medical professional liability insurance rates have soared, causing major insurers to either drop coverage or raise premiums to unaffordable levels, they say. The conservative-backed bill (H.R. 4280) seeks to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by "reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system." It would do so, among other ways, by capping the amount of money an injured person can sue a doctor for after being injured and capping attorneys' fees for those lawyers that would represent the injured party. But progressives argued that this legislation is just part and parcel of the conservatives' overarching legal reform agenda designed to weaken the rights of individuals seeing redress in the courts, and asserted that HR 4280 does not help the medical profession itself or patients. Rather, progressives said, the Republican bill would enrich the insurance companies of America, the health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and the manufacturers and distributors of medical products, which sometimes are defective. "In other words," said Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), "all the bad, unpleasant negative parts of our health care system are being protected. And who do we do it at the expense of? The innocent victims of medical malpractice, particularly women and children and the elderly poor." Conservatives replied that without reining in lawsuits, even individuals with health insurance will be in a fix if there are no doctors available to provide treatment. Conservatives also said that U.S. courts have become a "legal lotto system" rather than a fair system that judges meritorious claims. HR 4280 was approved 229-197, meaning an individual's right to sue for medical-related damages would be curtailed under this bill.

A Democratic effort to send back to committee for redrafting medical malpractice legislation (HR 4280) was defeated 193-231, notwithstanding progressives' ardent backing of the motion. The redrafting motion would have ensured that any monetary savings afforded to insurers from the bill's goal of reining in medical lawsuits would be passed onto health insurance policyholders. That instruction, set forth in the motion to recommit (send back) the legislation offered by House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.) would go to the heart of the medical malpractice crisis, progressives said. Rather than limiting the rights of legitimate malpractice victims -- as progressives contended is the case with the conservative-backed HR 4280 sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) -- Conyers' motion would "logically and directly address the problems of frivolous lawsuits and insurance industry abuses," he said. To combat frivolous lawsuits, the Conyers amendment contained in his motion to recommit addresses the problem of frivolous lawsuits, progressives said, by requiring that both an attorney and a health care specialist submit an affidavit that the claim is warranted before malpractice action can be brought and imposes strict sanctions for attorneys who make frivolous pleadings. It also provides for mandatory mediation of cases, a uniform statute of limitations, and a narrowing of the requirements for punitive damage claims. Finally, insurers would be required to dedicate at least 50 percent of any savings resulting from the litigation reforms to reduce the premiums that medical professionals pay, as opposed to pocketing their reduced costs as profits. And, unlike the conservative backed legislation, Conyers' would limit these conditions to licensed physicians and health professionals for malpractice cases only. His amendment also would establish a national commission to evaluate the rising insurance premiums and the causes for why that is occurring. Conservatives including Sensenbrenner attacked the alternative plan as failing to provide "real change," and includes "zero legal protections for doctors beyond current law." He added, "Legal reforms are essential to solving the current crisis in the medical professional liability insurance area and increasing access of health care to all." As for Conyers' proposed advisory commission, it would be charged with studying a problem "that is already patently obvious to the most casual observer and to report back sometime in the future when even more patients will have lost access to essential medical care," Sensenbrenner said. Conservatives also took issue with progressives' claim that there is no enforcement mechanism to make sure that medical professional liability rates go down, saying state insurance commissioners already are charged with overruling excessive or unjustified rate hikes.

Backers of this legislation (HR 4279), touted by conservatives as a measure that would help save people money in health care expenses by updating "flexible spending arrangements" (FSAs), won handily by a 273-152 vote. FSAs enable individuals who have health insurance through an employee to set aside money in an employer-established benefit plan that can be used on a tax-free basis to meet their out-of-pocket health care expenses during the year. However, under current law, any money remaining in the FSA at the end of the year must be returned to the employer. It is this "use it [the money in the FSA] or lose it rule" that would be undone by HR 4279. House conservatives touted this as a "common sense" and long-overdue initiative to help reduce out of pocket health expenses for individuals, but progressives argued that this was simply another tax break, and one that will serve to encourage businesses to cut health insurance programs or raise deductibles for their employees. Moreover, progressives said, a more valid debate for Congress pertaining to healthcare would be over finding a way to provide healthcare coverage to the 44 million uninsured Americans.

House progressives supported this Democratic motion to recommit -- a procedural request to send this Republican healthcare legislation (HR 4279), back to its drafting committee with instructions to specify that none of the bill's cost would be footed by dipping into Social Security Trust Fund monies. HR 4279 would allow individuals who invest through their employers in flexible spending accounts (FSAs) - which are used to shield from taxes money earmarked for healthcare expenses -- to retain whatever balance they have left at the end of the year, up to $500. Under current law, that extra money must go back to the employer, where it is then subject to federal taxation. This proposed change in law under HR 4279 would cost the federal government $8 billion in tax revenues over 10 years, and progressives supported the instructions in the Democrats' motion to recommit directing the drafting committee to specify that the Social Security trust fund would not be tapped to pay for these losses. Conservatives, however, called that a convoluted instruction and dismissed it as a "gimmick." Conservatives disputed that HR 4279 would have an impact on the Social Security Trust Fund. They added that, in the long run, people helping make their own healthcare spending decisions saves money, it does not cost money, conservatives said. The Democratic motion to recommit failed 202-224, meaning the bill does not explicitly prohibit using Social Security fund money to pay for the saying the FSA tax change. Progressives oppose the underlying FSA-creation bill as an assault on the U.S. healthcare system, saying it is part of what they said was a conservative agenda to eliminate employer-based health care coverage by encouraging employees to set aside their own health care funds - an option progressives says is not realistic for most lower and mid-wage workers. Moreover, progressives also noted that the FSA in concept is in no way prohibited at present: Individuals presently can choose to establish savings accounts to pay for their out-of-pocket costs. However, progressives also asserted that FSAs have the potential to split the health insurance market, because FSAs are likely to be appealing to younger, healthier workers who would gain financially from a high deductible, lower cost plan because they use few health resources at any one time. As such, progressives reasoned, premiums for traditional indemnity plans would rise very rapidly, and as such, firms are likely to offer only an FSA option. Conservatives argued that Democratic amendments had been given ample consideration, and the motion was agreed to 222-202, with all Republicans but no Democrats voting in the motion's favor.

Democrats failed to advance a substitute to a conservative-backed bill (HR 4279) - a measure with a bearing on employees who channel portions of their salaries into an employer-established health care fund called "flexible spending account (FSA). HR 4279 would allow individuals who invest through their employers in FSAs to retain whatever balance they have left at the end of the year, up to $500, tax free. Under current law, all money in the FSA that has not been spent by an employee the year's end on healthcare services must be returned to the employer, and thus would be subject to federal taxation. The $500 of non-taxable money that will be placed in these accounts will rob the federal government of $8 billion in federal revenue over 10 years, progressives said. Progressives charged that the underlying goal of conservatives backing this bill is to dismantle the employer-based health insurance system, by encouraging a system where people set aside their own money for healthcare in these special tax deductible savings accounts. The Democratic substitute, which was rejected by the House 197-230, would provide similar roll-over opportunities for FSA accountholders. However, it would be paid for by eliminating the tax benefits that corporations receive when they reincorporate overseas for the express purposes of avoiding U.S. income taxes. Conservatives rejected the substitute mainly on the grounds that the funding mechanism identified in the proposal is "quite objectionable." Conservatives described such a tax imposition on corporations as a "retroactive" application of a change in the law which would affect companies that made a determination which was legal 30 or 40 years ago, they said.

Conservatives put their support behind this Republican-drafted resolution allowing for consideration of three health-care related bills (HR4279, HR4280, HR4281), including a bill that would: allow up to $500 of unused funds in a flexible spending account (FSA) to be rolled over to the following year's FSA or transferred to a health savings account; a bill that would cap the awards in medical malpractice cases; and a bill that would allow the creation of association health plans for small companies. FSAs are tax-exempt funds that individuals who obtain healthcare through an employer can earmark for healthcare expenses. Under current law, any extra money in a FSA at the end of the year goes back to the employer, but under HR4279 the FSA holder could retain up to $500 of any leftover money in that fund - tax free. Progressives charged that the underlying goal of conservatives backing this bill is to dismantle the employer-based health insurance system, by encouraging a system where people set aside their own money for healthcare in these special tax deductible savings accounts. The Republican-drafted resolution specified that if more than one of these three healthcare bills were to pass the House, the text of those bills will be combined into one measure. Progressives opposed the resolution on the grounds that the three healthcare bills in question were unfair, especially the one relating to FSAs, which progressives charged would create a tax shelter for "the healthy and wealthy" to preserve tax free health care spending accounts, and in so doing add billions to the deficit over a decade. The $500 of non-taxable money that will be placed in these accounts will rob the federal government of $8 billion in federal revenue over 10 years, progressives stated. Conservatives argued that the measures would make healthcare more widely available and easier for small businesses to provide to their employees. The resolution was adopted 224-203, with all Republicans voting in its favor and just one Democrat, meaning any or all three of these healthcare bills can be combined into a single bill for a vote on final passage - which had the effect of significantly curtailing debate.

Rep. Debbie Pryce (R-Ohio) was successful in her motion to order the previous question -- thus ending debate and possibility of amendment -- on adoption of the rule (H Res 638) to provide for House floor consideration of three health care related bills (HR4279, HR4280, HR4281). Those bills would: allow up to $500 of unused funds in a flexible spending account (FSA) to be rolled over to the following year's FSA or transferred to a health savings account; cap the awards in medical malpractice cases; and allow the creation of association health plans for small companies. Progressives objected to closing out debate on the measures, on the grounds, they said, that the bills in question were designed not to help patients or doctors, but to enrich insurers, health maintenance organizations and the segment of the population that is wealthy and in relatively good health. Progressives also objected to there not being ample discussion of how to extend health insurance coverage to the 44 million uninsured Americans. Progressives labeled the three bills an assault on the U.S. healthcare system, and charged the bills were part of what they said was a conservative agenda to eliminate employer-based health care coverage by encouraging employees to set aside their own health care funds - an option progressives says is not realistic for most lower and mid-wage workers. Moreover, progressives also noted that the FSA in concept is in no way prohibited at present: Individuals presently can choose to establish savings accounts to pay for their out-of-pocket costs. However, progressives also asserted that FSAs have the potential to split the health insurance market, because FSAs are likely to be appealing to younger, healthier workers who would gain financially from a high deductible, lower cost plan because they use few health resources at any one time. As such, progressives reasoned, premiums for traditional indemnity plans would rise very rapidly, and as such, firms are likely to offer only an FSA option. Conservatives argued that Democratic amendments had been given ample consideration, and the motion was agreed to 222-202, with all Republicans but no Democrats voting in the motion's favor.

Conservatives successfully backed Rep. Pete Sessions' (R-Texas) motion to order the previous question -- thus ending debate and possibility of amendment -- on adoption of the rule (H Res 637) to provide for House floor consideration of the bill (H.R. 4275) that would make permanent a tax break on middle-class earners. Conservatives reasoned that workers within this bracket - which includes lower and middle income individuals - deserved the tax break, which HR 4275 would make permanent. But progressives objected to the motion on the grounds that the measure, while helping many lower and middle class individuals, nevertheless comes with a $218 billion price tag. Progressives asserted conservatives failed to specify how to pay for this. Progressives charged that the bill is a continuation of what they said was irresponsible fiscal policy that has blossomed under President Bush's tenure, especially at a time when the nation faces a ballooning deficit with record low revenues coming in to the federal government, progressives argued. The motion was agreed to 221-203.

Progressives said they agreed with the spirit of this Republican-drafted resolution (H Res 627) entitled "Deploring the Abuse of Persons in United States Custody in Iraq," but said it did not go far enough in terms of holding anyone accountable for such abuses. While conservatives said it was important to recognize the abuses that were uncovered against persons in U.S. custody in Iraq - "regardless of the circumstances of their detention" and urged that that the Secretary of the Army "bring to swift justice any member of the Armed Forces who has violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice," they stopped short of ordering the full independent congressional investigation progressives asked for. As such, progressives urged their colleagues to vote against H. Res. 627 unless it is amended to include congressional investigations and regret for the acts of those wearing the uniform of the United States military. The resolution was approved 365-50, with only 49 Democrats and one Republican voting against it, a vote that shut the door on the progressive notion of initiating an independent congressional inquiry into the prison abuses.

Conservatives moved to "order the previous question" on this resolution (H Res 628) condemning the harsh treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Moving the previous question is a parliamentary move that shuts down debate and precludes consideration of any amendments. The motion was made after Democrats objected that the resolution fails to call for accountability, including an independent congressional inquiry into the prison abuses. The final tally was 218-201, with all Republicans but no Democrats voting in favor of ordering the previous question. Approval of the motion precluded progressives from offering amendments that would have required an independent congressional inquiry be a part of the resolution. This means the vote was symbolic with no actual requirement for an inquiry.

Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.) had the backing of progressives on his motion to instruct House members participating in a conference committee with Senate budgeters to work out a compromise fiscal year 2005 budget resolution (S Con Res 95). Specifically, Moore's motion suggested the House agree to the Senate's position that tax cuts and spending increases must be paid for with corresponding revenue increases or tax hikes somewhere else in the budget. These so called pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules would apply to "all legislation increasing the deficit as a result of direct spending increases and tax cuts," the motion said. Progressives argued that these instructions were needed to help rein in the ballooning deficit. Conservatives countered that the budget document walks a fine line between spending and deficit reduction, noting that it continues to support a program of economic growth, while reining in spending and working to reduce the deficits. Moreover, conservatives also suggested it was hypocritical for some members of the House to support the motion's PAYGO requirements, when some of those same members had voted in favor of various tax cuts. The Democratic motion failed by a vote of 208-215, meaning the House's official position remains that the tax cuts in the budget resolution would not have to be paid for.

The House passed this so-called Alternative Minimum Tax bill (HR 4227) amid the efforts of conservatives, who were acting to uphold President Bush's demand for this legislation. The vote on final passage was a lopsided 333-89, with all "no" votes coming from among Democrats. The bill that would extend for one year the current income exemptions -- up to $40,250 for individual taxpayers and $58,000 for married couples -- from the alternative minimum tax (AMT). That means individuals and couples would not have to pay taxes on income up to those levels under the AMT. The AMT was created under President Nixon to prevent wealthy Americans and big corporations from using legitimate tax breaks to avoid paying income taxes altogether. More than three decades later, because of the failure to index it for inflation, the number of taxpayers subject to the so-called alternative minimum tax (AMT) has exploded to include many in the middle class, far beyond the intended target group. And there is widespread support in both parties for a permanent restructuring of the 1969 law. But faced with mounting deficits and rising costs for the Iraq war, lawmakers agreed on a short-term fix - and postponing expensive long-range changes until after the elections. The House's vote to pass HR 4227 would continue for one year current exemptions from the AMT, with an adjustment for inflation. The measure, estimated to cost $17.8 billion in forgone revenue over 10 years, was sponsored by Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.) Conservatives argued the bill would "prevent millions of middle-class, middle-income Americans from paying higher taxes next year," but progressives countered that the legislation amounted to "yet another cynical ploy of gimmicks and illusions masquerading as long-term tax policy." Conservatives said they are for eliminating the alternative minimum tax, because it adds complexity to the tax code and affects many of the middle class. However, progressives noted, the minimum tax also acts as a back-up to the regular corporate income tax, and is designed to assure that profitable corporations pay at least some income tax even if they can otherwise take advantage of a plethora of loopholes. Progressives thus charged that conservatives are just working for the corporations, and that it is just as easy to adjust the law as it is to do away with it. According to progressives, many of the corporations that have been pushing Congress to gut the minimum tax are profitable companies that pay no income tax, and in opposing HR 4227, progressives referenced a Treasury Department estimate in 1995 that AMT changes such as those envisioned in the current House tax plan would take 76,000 profitable corporations completely off the tax rolls.

A Democratic substitute offered by Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) to the conservative-backed Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) bill (HR 4227) failed to pass. The vote was 197-228 on the Neal substitute amendment, which would have exempted individuals with gross incomes of less than $125,000 and married couples with incomes below $250,000 from the AMT in 2005. The AMT was created under President Nixon to prevent wealthy Americans and big corporations from using legitimate tax breaks to avoid paying income taxes altogether. More than three decades later, because of the failure to index it for inflation, the number of taxpayers subject to the so-called alternative minimum tax (AMT) has exploded to include many in the middle class, far beyond the intended target group. And there is widespread support in both parties for a permanent restructuring of the 1969 law. But faced with mounting deficits and rising costs for the Iraq war, lawmakers agreed on a short-term fix - and postponing expensive long-range changes until after the elections. Neal's plan would have phased in AMT liability for individuals with income between $125,000 and $145,000, and married taxpayers with income between $250,000 and $290,000. Neal proposed to offset the $19.3 billion cost of this tax reform by restricting certain tax shelter transactions, specifically by restricting corporate bookkeeping practices aimed at reducing corporate taxes. Progressives hailed the substitute as the more responsible bill that would provide relief to more than 10 million families while not increasing the budget deficit, they said. Progressives said Neal "unambiguously and completely" exempts married couples with incomes under $250,000 from the AMT, while the Republican bill gives "big breaks" to those couples making more than $250,000 who need tax relief the least and have already most benefited from the Bush tax cuts. In contrast, progressives asserted, HR 4227 does not provide effective AMT relief for lower-income households, nor is it paid for with any offsetting revenue increases or spending cuts. But conservatives called the Neal payment plan a "tax hike," and said tax relief already is lifting the economy. At a time when our economy is struggling, the idea of permanently raising corporate taxes is one that is ill conceived, conservatives said. The failure of Neal's substitute amendment effectively precludes the House from having a meaningful debate over whether AMT reforms should be paid for via corporate tax increases.

A majority of the House agreed to a Republican motion to "order the previous question" -- thus ending debate and possibility of amendment -- on adoption of the rule (H Res 619) to provide for House floor consideration of a bill (HR 4227) that would extend for one year the current income exemptions from the alternative minimum tax (AMT). The AMT was created under President Nixon to prevent wealthy Americans and big corporations from using legitimate tax breaks to avoid paying income taxes altogether. Because it is not indexed for inflation, after three decades the number of taxpayers subject to the so-called alternative minimum tax (AMT) has exploded to include many in the middle class, far beyond the intended target group. And there is widespread support in both parties for a permanent restructuring of the 1969 law. The Republican motion was approved over the objections of progressives, who said the rulemaking had failed to take into account both opposing and complementary amendments sought by Democrats, including those designed to ensure that the temporary tax repeal would be offset with revenue increases elsewhere in the budget, specifically, by closing corporate tax "loopholes." The motion was agreed to 220-201 completely along party lines, with the result being Democrats were precluded from raising their amendments on the floor and engaging in debate on the merits of their proposals.

The "Marriage Penalty Relief Act" (HR 4181) backed by President Bush was easily approved by the full House by a 323-95 vote, notwithstanding progressives' efforts to defeat it. The bill would permanently eliminate the so-called marriage penalty by making the standard tax deduction for married couples double that of single taxpayers. It also would make permanent higher income limits for married couples eligible to receive the refundable earned-income tax credit. The bill carries a $105 billion price tag over 10 years. Progressives agreed with conservatives insofar as "no one in this body believes ... it is fair" that married individuals should have to pay more taxes than if you were single or filing separately, the debate on HR 4181 was actually over whether Congress should continue to finance tax cuts out of Social Security and Medicare. With the budget deficit this year already more than half a trillion dollars, passage of this bill will only make matters worse, progressives argued. Progressives instead supported a Democratic substitute, offered by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) that they said would provide more than twice as much tax relief without threatening economic growth, and would be paid for through corresponding revenue raisers elsewhere in the budget that would be borne by the rich. However, conservatives cast progressives' objections to the Republican bill as an objection to remedying the marriage penalty, and emphasized the importance of making this relief a permanent part of the tax code. Married working couples will be able to use this tax relief to benefit their families, which always helps the economy, conservatives argued.

The White House-backed H R 4181 is a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to permanently extend the increased standard tax deduction for married taxpayers filing joint returns, but the measure lacks the budget accountability progressives said was needed. As such, Democrats made a motion to recommit - send back to committee - HR 4181, with instructions for the drafting committee to amend the bill with a provision to ensure the tax cuts are paid for either through revenue increases or tax increases elsewhere. This type of language, dubbed pay-as-you-go (PAYGO), was included in the Democratic instructions to the committee, directing House budgeters to designate corresponding revenue raisers to offset the tax revenue lost by the marriage penalty repeal. The debate is not about whether Congress should end the marriage tax penalty, said progressives. Rather, they said, the debate is whether Congress should do so with borrowed money, adding more debt on top of a $7.1 trillion national debt -- or paying "as we go", progressives said. The Democratic motion to recommit failed 199-220, with conservatives arguing that it would be unfair to single out this particular tax reform to have to meet the PAYGO test. Failure to attach the PAYGO provisions sought by progressives means the tax cuts advocated in HR 4181 would not need to be paid for by raising additional revenue from elsewhere in the federal budget.

Conservatives helped defeat a substitute bill, offered by House Ways and Means ranking member Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to a Republican-drafted measure (HR 4181) designed to eliminate the "marriage penalty", with the final vote being 189-226 to defeat the progressive-backed alternative. In the 1960s, Congress changed the tax laws to relieve what was perceived as an unfair tax burden on single taxpayers. Now, lawmakers are attempting to provide relief for married taxpayers, who often pay more than their single counterparts. Not all married taxpayers suffer under current law, however. About half of all joint filers receive a marriage bonus, paying less than if they were single. The Congressional Budget Office has found that spouses who earn roughly equal incomes are the most vulnerable to paying more, while couples in which one spouse earns most of the income have a smaller joint tax liability than what the sum of the two would be if they were single. What Rangel's proposed substitute bill would have done, among other things, was nullified the effect of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) on tax breaks for married couples. The AMT was created under President Nixon to prevent wealthy Americans and big corporations from using legitimate tax breaks to avoid paying income taxes altogether. But because the AMT was never indexed for inflation, it currently sweeps in many middle class families, offsetting many of their legitimate tax exemptions. The Rangel substitute's $207 billion cost would have been offset with a surtax on individuals annually earning more than $500,000 and couples earning more than $1 million. However, conservatives criticized Rangel's offer, which Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.) said amounts to "a $207 billion tax increase on individuals, on families, and on small business." Progressives retorted that the Republican Marriage Penalty bill is being used by conservatives for political posturing - especially given the Senate's opposition to HR 4181 and the resulting likelihood it would therefore not become law. Progressives also argued that the substance of the Republican legislation is neither realistic nor serves a true purpose in its current form. According to progressives, this legislation would leave middle class married couples in the cold when it comes to tax relief. And they noted it has "no legitimate offsets" to pay for its expense - an "irresponsible" move that will only grow the deficit and make greater the burden on average Americans, progressives said. By contrast, progressives claimed, the Rangel substitute offers a "responsible" way to extend relief from the marriage penalty by paying for the measure by closing tax loopholes. However, conservatives stood by their assertion that tax cuts lead to economic recovery, and argued that "under the guise" of individual tax relief from the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, the Rangel substitute would raise taxes by $15 billion. This new tax increase would fall squarely on the shoulders of America's small businesses, conservatives asserted, which would negatively affect the same American companies that create jobs and drive our nation's economic engine. The defeat of Rangel's substitute effectively served to kill off any further attempts by progressives to ensure that new tax breaks for married couples under HR 4181 would be paid for via revenue raising measures or tax increases elsewhere.

Conservatives were successful in shepherding through the House legislation (HR 2844) designed to ensure the continuity of the House of Representatives in the event of a massive disaster, but the measure invited protest from the chamber's progressive contingent. Conservatives prevailed 306-97 in passing the measure, with only seven Republicans voting against its final approval. The roll call on H.R. 2844 shows 202 Republicans and 104 Democrats voted yes; seven Republicans, 89 Democrats and one Independent voted no; and 18 Republicans and 12 Democrats did not vote. Under the Constitution, the 17th Amendment permits state governors to appoint senators to vacant seats, but there is no comparable provision for the prompt replacement of members of the House. Instead, the Constitution requires the executive authority of a state in which a vacancy occurs in the House to order a special election to fill the vacancy. But, Congress also has the power under the Constitution to "make or alter" state laws governing "the times, places and manner of holding elections" for members of the House. Pursuant to that authority, H.R. 2844 would require the states, upon announcement by the Speaker of the House that the number of vacancies exceeds 100, to conduct special elections within 45 days of the announcement. However, the only House committee to conduct hearings on H.R. 2844, the House Administration Committee, was deeply divided on the questions whether the bill adequately addresses the myriad issues concerning the continuity of Congress and whether the bill, independent of those issues, posed a workable solution, i.e., whether it would be feasible to conduct widespread special elections during a period of incalculable vacancies and national chaos. Those hearings revealed that the debate on this subject essentially divides into two camps. There are those who view a quick reconstitution of the House as the most important consideration, and, thus, support a constitutional amendment allowing for the appointment of temporary replacements to fill vacant House seats. Supporters of temporary appointments believe they would ensure that House membership would not be severely depleted in the weeks or even months that might be needed to schedule special elections. From their perspective, the appointments could also demonstrate the country's determination to continue a representative form of government, even in extraordinary times. Moreover, they argue that restricting the use of appointment authority and requiring large number of vacancies to occur before the measures could be invoked would help to safeguard against using the measures in situations other than extreme emergencies. The second camp are those who believe retaining the House's elected character is paramount and, therefore, support expedited special elections as the exclusive means for reconstituting the House of Representatives. The second camp, led by the House's conservative element, won out. Progressives argued that they would prefer amending the Constitution to permit the appointment of replacement House members after disasters, at least until the states could hold special elections. And while H.R. 2844 addressed the critical issue of how House vacancies would be filled, progressives said that is a matter of national constitutional import requiring study by the House Judiciary panel -- a duty they claimed the Republican chairman of that panel abdicated. But while Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) pledged to take up the constitutional amendment issue separately, "The issue of maintaining the people's House I think is the paramount consideration we ought to be giving on this issue," he said in advocating support for HR 2844. Moreover, House conservatives said they would oppose such a constitutional amendment, and said legislation was needed to maintain the elected nature of the House. As Sensenbrenner put it, "I believe the principle of an elected House of Representatives is one that should prevail over everything. If we end up having an appointed House of Representatives even temporarily and an appointed Senate and an appointed resident, where do the people rule?" Still, HR 2844 enjoyed broad bipartisan support, and passage would not have been possible if more than half the House Democrats had not voted with a majority of Republicans. Conservatives touted the wide margin of approval as clear indication that most members agree and intend to keep the lower chamber an elected body even in the wake of severe casualties.

Progressives failed to adopt an amendment to underlying legislation (HR 2844) permitting expedited elections to assure the House's continued functioning in case large numbers of its members are killed in a terrorist attack or other catastrophe. The amendment, beaten 188-217, sponsored by House Administration Committee ranking member John Larson (D-Conn.) would have struck the bill's 10-day deadline for political parties to select nominees and substitute language that would require a potential candidate to meet the requirements to get on the ballot as set by state law. Sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., the underlying legislation would require states to call special elections to fill wide-scale vacancies within 45 days after the House speaker announces the existence of "extraordinary circumstances" - defined as the death or incapacitation of 100 or more of the chamber's 435 members. Replacement candidates would be nominated to the ballot by those political parties recognized in the various states within 10 days of the speaker's announcement. Larson is one of three Democrats who have introduced constitutional amendments allowing vacancies to be filled by appointment until special elections can be held. Progressives argued that, regardless of how one feels about a constitutional amendment to address congressional continuity, HR 2844 should be defeated because, as Larson put it, "it will not work in practice and does not address the need to [reconstitute] the Congress immediately following a disaster. It does not support the immediate restoration of representative democracy." The defeat of Larson's amendment allowed Conservatives to uphold the underlying bill's 10-day deadline for political parties to nominate replacement candidates to the House in the event a significant number of members were suddenly killed or incapacitated.

Conservatives successfully countered House progressives' attempts to advance an amendment, sponsored by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), that would have altered H R 2844, a measure designed to ensure the continuity of the House membership in the event of a catastrophe that kills most of the House members. Beaten back by a 179-229 vote, the Larson amendment sought to extend the time frame for conducting special elections from 45 to 75 days. Sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., the underlying legislation would require states to call special elections to fill wide-scale vacancies within 45 days after the House speaker announces the existence of "extraordinary circumstances" - defined as the death or incapacitation of 100 or more of the chamber's 435 members. Replacement candidates would be nominated to the ballot by those political parties recognized in the various states within 10 days of the speaker's announcement. Larson emphasized that the disagreement over the bill and his amendment extending the timeframe was "not partisan," because the issue does not advantage or disadvantage either party, he said. "This is a disagreement on the wisdom of the proposed policy. I am against the bill because it fails to correct the most egregious problems caused by forcing all States to conduct elections within 45 days of the speaker's announcement of mass member fatalities." Progressives backed Larson's amendment, saying the need for representative democracy to be promptly installed in the aftermath of a catastrophe needs to be balanced with making democratic rights are not trampled on by not allowing enough time. By winning the vote against the Larson amendment, Conservatives ensured that special elections under the bill would commence within 45 days of a catastrophe in which more than 100 House members are killed or incapacitated.

Conservatives prevailed in a vote on a House resolution (H Res 602) that allowed the full chamber to begin consideration of a measure designed to provide for new elections in the event more than 100 representatives are killed in a mass catastrophe. The vote, 212-197, was mostly along party lines, and was preceded by a sharply worded floor debate on the underlying measure (HR 2844). The resolution outlined the parameters for debate and allowable amendments, but progressives argued that it did not allow for present several amendments designed to make the bill more effective. Opponents of the resolution, led by House Rules ranking member Martin Frost (D-Texas), argued that "the manner in which this bill is being brought to the floor does a disservice to the very serious issue of continuity of government." Specifically, progressives were concerned that the House Judiciary Committee had not been given the opportunity to hold hearings on the legislation, and that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, they charged, had chosen to push this remedy for massive death of members of Congress to the exclusion of any other idea, such as a Constitutional amendment. Frost said, "The House has chosen to make this a partisan issue. And the stability of our government and its institutions should not now, or ever, become a partisan issue." It especially rankled progressives that the conservative House leaders refused to permit floor debate on such a Constitutional amendment in the course of debate HR 2844. As such, said Frost, "We do not know when that amendment will actually have the opportunity to be voted on upon the floor."

Conservatives prevailed on this procedural vote related to the (HR 2844) a bill to have a contingency plan in place for salvaging the legislative branch of government, in the event a large number of House lawmakers were killed, such as through a major terrorist attack. H.R. 2844, sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), provides that, if more than 100 House Members are killed, the Speaker of the House can declare that ``extraordinary circumstances'' exist. Such a declaration would trigger, within 45 days, expedited special elections in those districts whose members have been killed. The political parties are given 10 days within which to nominate candidates for these elections. Conservatives argued that the bill upholds an important constitutional principle that the government should neither exist nor change barring the express will of the people. Without an elected House, conservatives reasoned, legislation could be passed by a federal government composed entirely of the unelected. The measure was conceived of after the 9/11 terrorist attacks because of the chance of a large number of members dying simultaneously. The procedural vote, in which conservatives prevailed 210-198, was on whether the House should "move the previous question" and take up a resolution drafted by the House Rules Committee (HRES 602), which laid out the parameters for consideration of (H.R. 2844), the Continuity in Representation Act. Moving the previous question means the measure at hand cannot be debated or amended, and must be voted on immediately. But House Rules ranking member Martin Frost (D-Texas), urged a 'no' vote on the procedural measure, and emphasized that the underlying bill was heady stuff, given that "no member in the history of this body has ever taken the oath of office without first having been elected by the people." Despite that seriousness, Frost said the resulting bill was not the "thoughtful, serious, nonpartisan" legislation progressives had hoped for. "What we got instead was a poorly thought out and wholly inadequate response to the questions we raised two years ago," Frost said. Conservatives defended the bill, saying the proposed 45-day window for organizing new elections was ample, and disagreed with progressives that a series of constitutional amendments would better serve those aims than the bill. Progressives believe a quick reconstitution of the House in the event of mass member deaths is the most important consideration, and, thus, support a constitutional amendment allowing for the appointment of temporary replacements to fill vacant House seats. Supporters of temporary appointments believe they would ensure that House membership would not be severely depleted in the weeks or even months that might be needed to schedule special elections. From their perspective, the appointments could also demonstrate the country's determination to continue a representative form of government, even in extraordinary times. Moreover, they argue that restricting the use of appointment authority and requiring large number of vacancies to occur before the measures could be invoked would help to safeguard against using the measures in situations other than extreme emergencies. But because Democrats failed to stop the procedural motion, which outlined the parameters for debate but precluded Democrats from bringing the merits of a constitutional amendment up for debate, progressives were barred from being able to broach the constitutional question during the floor discussion in any meaningful way.

House Progressives were unsuccessful in stopping a short-term pension reform conference report -- the culmination of House and Senate negotiations to reconcile their differing bills - from passing the House and traveling to President Bush's desk for his signature. Bush signed the measure into law April 8. Conservatives argued that the legislation (HR 3108), called the Pension Funding Equity Act, could save employer sponsors of pension plans $80 billion over the next two years in reduced company pension contributions -- thereby freeing up company funds and providing a substantial boost to business investment and hiring around the country, conservatives said. However, progressives argued that the bill did not do enough to save multiemployer plans, a smaller group of funds run jointly by unions and management, from being forced to make massive and crippling payments, and unsuccessfully sought to recommit the bill to committee. Progressives had targeted a range of multi-employer plans for relief by permitting those with pension funding shortfalls between mid-2002 and mid-2006 to put off recognizing the deficiencies on their books. That way, the companies sponsoring those plans could escape hefty excise taxes levied on underfunded multi-employer plans, amid hopes for a stock market rebound that would boost plan assets. However, the final House vote tally in favor of approving the conference report was 336-69, thus leaving the shortfalls faced by multi-employer plans unaddressed.

Progressives in the House were unsuccessful in sending a pension conference report (HR 3108) -- ostensibly designed to help troubled worker pension plans stay afloat in the short-term while Congress prepares comprehensive solutions to reform and strengthen the defined benefit system -- back to its committee of origin for reconsideration. The measure includes a key interest rate fix to replace the 30-year Treasury rate with what conservatives said was a more accurate benchmark for employers to measure their pension funding promises to workers. Progressives' effort to make the bill more favorable to multiemployer plans via their motion to recommit the bill to its drafting panel was turned back by a vote of 195-217. Conservatives argued that economists have warned that if Congress fails to enact a 30-year replacement bill before mid-April, it could deal an unnecessary blow to an economy that is showing clear signs of picking up steam. They said the bill's new calculation is considered a better estimate of how much money pensions need to pay future retirement benefits. The firms would save an estimated $80 billion over two years. However, progressives criticized the bill for not doing more to save multiemployer plans, a smaller group of funds run jointly by unions and management, from being forced to make massive and crippling payments, and sought to recommit the bill to committee. Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., said the bill helps large corporations while punishing smaller businesses with union affiliations. "We won't throw the life preservers for union plans and union workers," he said. "That is wrong." conservatives, however, countered that most multiemployer plans will not face serious pension problems until five or six years from now and do not need immediate help.

Progressives in a largely symbolic gesture - since it was clear that the entire Republican majority would unite to overrule them - sought to turn back a resolution (H Con Res 404) offered by House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Texas), that would permit the House and Senate to adjourn for the chambers' two-week-long April recess. Progressives argued that it was unfair for the House to adjourn without first considering an extension of federal unemployment benefits for the estimated 1.1 million jobless workers who will have exhausted their regular state unemployment benefits without receiving additional aid, since the extended benefits program was cut off in December 2003. Progressives said this is the largest number of people exhausting benefits in over 30 years, and noted that an additional 160,000 people would exhaust their benefits during the April recess. However, conservatives countered that the federal benefit extension was not needed because while during previous recessions the federal government has provided unemployment assistance, they said there was no precedent for doing so when the unemployment rate is down to 5.6 percent. The resolution was approved 212-201, thus the House adjourned without extending the unemployment rules.

Progressives failed 198-225 to advance a motion offered by Rep. Davis (D-Tenn.) to recommit (send back) the highway funding bill (HR 3550) bill to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with instructions to increase funding for the bill to the Senate-passed level of $318 billion. No Republicans voted in favor of the Davis motion. Progressives argued that, as written the transportation bill has "a number of genuine shortcomings," including a failure, they said, to provide an adequate level of funding to meet the needs of our states' transportation infrastructure. The Senate approved highway legislation providing $318 billion over six years, while the House took up a $275 billion measure. Progressives made the case that the highway bill was also a jobs bill, citing estimates that every $1 billion invested in federal highway and transit creates 47,500 jobs. They proposed paying for this federal expenditure by raising government revenues elsewhere - mainly via cracking down on "abusive tax shelters" that enable American companies from avoiding paying U.S. taxes by moving to a foreign country, progressives said. Conservatives, led in the debate by House Transportation Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) said the $318 billion figure advanced by the Senate is "very frankly ...not true. What we have to do is try to find the real dollars, and we are going to attempt to do that in conference," Young said. Conservatives also charged progressives with linking the bill to the tax issue as a way to try and score "political points."

Progressives helped defeat an amendment offered by Rep. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., to the highway funding bill (HR 3550) that would increased the number of state projects included in the federal government's calculation for determining the minimum of funding support for each state. HR 3550 as written reiterates the states' position that improved highway funding equity is a critical and necessary part of that legislation; however, over the states' objections, the measure would exempt so-called high priority state projects and other newly-proposed discretionary programs from the scope of the federal "minimum guarantee" of funding for the states. The Isakson amendment was part of a vigorous debate on the size of the pot of money to be divided up among the states according to a formula that takes into account such factors as road miles and usage. Linked to that issue is the percentage return states get for the excise tax dollars they send to the Highway Trust Fund for road projects. The Isakson amendment, sponsored by nine Republicans and a Democrat from donor states that send more in dollars to the trust fund than they get back for projects in their states, would have required money for regional and national projects and for "high priority" projects, those requested by members of Congress, to be included in the formula allocations. Specifically, the amendment would mean that instead of a formula included in HR 3550 that allocates 84 percent of the available money in the bill, the amendment formula would allocate to states 93 percent of the available money in the bill. States would be assured a rate of return of at least 90.5 percent in fiscal 2004, the current guaranteed level, and that rate of return would increase to 95 percent by fiscal 2009. Isakson's amendment failed 170-254, with the defeat helped along by progressives who charged that, by using different assumptions about how the money for regionally significant projects and unallocated high-priority project monies would be handled, most states would actually lose federal funding under the amendment. With Isakson's amendment rejected, the rate of return to states under HR 3550 remains at 84 percent.

Among the amendments approved during two days of debate on the House version of the highway funding bill (HR 3550) was one offered by Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-Minn.) dealing with tolls on existing highways and expanding the ability to impose toll charges on motorists. Lauded by conservatives, the Kennedy amendment would replace a provision in the House highway bill to implement new tolls on existing congested highway lanes and continue charging tolls indefinitely, with language that would permit tolls only on new voluntary-use lanes until the new lanes are paid for. Progressives said the amendment, which provides that tolls from the new voluntary-use lanes would be dedicated to new highway capacity, was "misguided," and said the original language of the bill, which permits those tolls to continue to operate in order to pay for routine road maintenance, was a more equitable funding solution. Kennedy's amendment was adopted by a vote of 231-193, thus altering HR 3550 to allow new congestion tolls only on new voluntary-use lanes, and would mandate that once construction of the new lane was paid for, the toll would end. Kennedy said surveys indicate that drivers are willing to pay tolls for improved roads but that support for tolls drops when the money would be used for routine maintenance or for other purposes. The largest national organization representing drivers, the American Automobile Association, takes a dim view of tolling on most roads - but especially on congested roads where such tolls become a "very regressive tax," AAA says, since most drivers would avoid those lanes if they could, but are forced to use them to get to and from work.

Progressives helped to narrowly defeat an amendment to the highway transportation bill (HR 3550) that would have allowed heavy trucks to add air ventilation units weighing up to 400 pounds to their rigs. Specifically, the conservative-backed proposal, offered by Rep. Chris Chocola (R-Ind.) would have imposed a 400-pound weight limit exclusion for any heavy-duty motor vehicles equipped with EPA-approved "idling reduction technology," which is intended to reduce emissions and fuel consumption. In this way, a driver could park, shut off the engine -- along with its noise, fumes and vibration -- and still stay warm or cool. For the past several years, certain companies have worked with EPA, the Transportation Department and other agencies to perfect independent, on-board power systems that provide the power necessary for big rigs to run the heating, air-conditioning, and other electronic needs, without having to keep their engines running and emitting pollutants. However, as progressives pointed out, there are other units that can be plugged into by big rig drivers at designated locations, which alleviate the need to carry such equipment with them. Progressives also noted that adding that 400-pound technology would have possible wear and tear ramifications for roadways, and suggested that the amendment was designed merely as a handout for Air King, a Pennsylvania based company that builds these portable ventilation units. "There is better technology, does not have the weight, they can plug it in and not put that added weight on the roadway," Rep. James Obsertar (D-Minn.) said. Conservatives did not directly address that charge in advocating for the Chocola amendment, which was voted down 198-228, meaning the 400-pound weight limit exclusion was rejected.

Conservatives won out in this procedural vote related to the FY05 (HR 3550) a bill to authorize funding for federal highways, highway safety and transit programs. The vote was on whether the House should "move the previous question" and take up a resolution drafted by the House Rules Committee (HRES 593), which laid out the parameters for the highway funding debate and what amendments would be considered in order for discussion. The effect of adopting and thereby "moving the previous question" is to close debate immediately, to prevent the moving of amendments or any other motions, and to bring the House at once to a vote on the immediately pending question -- in this case the resolution on the bill. But progressives failed 229-194 in opposing the conservatives press for HRES 593, which they said did not allow the House to work its will on a higher funding level for the highway bill on a bipartisan basis. Conservatives, led by Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), chairman of the Rules Committee, argued that the rule was "very fair and balanced." Dreier noted that the Rules panel had received a total of 59 amendments for our consideration, and this rule makes in order 23 of those 59 amendments that were submitted, including 14 amendments offered by Republicans, eight amendments offered by Democrats, and one bipartisan amendment. The rule also made in order a "very bipartisan" manager's amendment, which addresses a significant number of concerns that have been raised by many members, Dreier said. But progressives balked, saying there were glaring omissions in the Democratic amendments allowed, and chided the conservative majority for failing to take up certain amendments designed to ensure that none of these jobs in transportation would be outsourced. They also argued that the House bill shorted funding for the highway measure, and they sought to increase funding to the $318 billion level set by the Senate for comparable legislation. Progressives also argued that they were thwarted in attempts to outline U.S. transportation system requirements that helps achieve goals of the Clean Air Act -- which the Bush administration has gone on record trying to roll back.

Progressives backed passage of this bi-partisan resolution (H.Res.585), which states that federal civilian employees will receive the same annual pay raise as military personnel. Progressives said this should be "a well-settled principle. Unfortunately," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a sponsor of the resolution, "we are faced with an administration that does not appreciate the importance of the federal workforce. Waxman added that the resolution was needed in light of "countless examples of federal employees coming under attack from this administration." Progressives also noted that in the past two years, 800,000 civilian employees at the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense have seen the revocation of their collective bargaining rights, due process rights and appeal rights. We have seen an ideologically driven campaign to privatize federal jobs. They also attacked President Bush's fiscal year 2005 budget priorities with respect to federal employees, with the president proposing giving civilian employees a 1.5 percent raise, less than half, less than half the raise that military personnel will receive, progressives said. It is all the more unfair, they added, in light of the Bush administration decision to grant tax cuts to very wealthy individuals. Progressives said the resolution is imperative for it expresses the sense of Congress that the government should provide fair compensation for federal employees in order to encourage citizens to pursue a life of public service. House conservatives argued that the resolution's proposed 3.5 percent pay raise for federal civilian workers was "too generous." They added that just because pay is raised for the military, it does not follow that federal civil servants should get a larger raise, too. Progressives countered that, "People that work at civil service jobs are not taking the same risks on behalf of their country as people that are working in our Armed Forces. We do not have the retention problems in the civil service sector as we do in the Armed Forces." On top of that, conservatives stated, the U.S. taxpayer simply cannot afford the $2.2 billion per year that such a raise would cost. Nevertheless, the resolution passed 299-126, meaning the House is on record stating that federal civilian workers should be entitled to a pay raise commensurate with that of military personnel.

House conservatives prevailed in passing legislation (H R 3966), dubbed the Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act, over the objections of progressives, who suggested the legislation was hypocritical in that it afforded open access to students even as the military denies access to its ranks based on an applicant's sexual orientation. In a 343-81 vote, the measure passed with the support of an overwhelming majority of House members, both Republican and Democrat. Progressives were especially aggrieved that they had been barred by the conservative majority from offering a Democratic motion to recommit, or send back, the bill to its drafting committee, in order to ensure a fuller discussion of progressives' concerns with the legislation. Said Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), "We need to talk about such issues as to whether everybody in this country is going to be treated equally with respect to being able to join the military." The measure was moved through committee with no hearings. However, conservatives argued that the measure was about providing "choice" and "opportunity" to students and introducing them to the benefits associated with a military career. "Bringing the prospects ... to be a leader in the Armed Forces of the United States, to be what most American citizens feel are our finest citizens, is a great opportunity. This bill will ensure that those people have that choice," said Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio). But Rep. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.), speaking for progressives, also railed against the fact that the bill "would broadly expand the prohibition on federal funding to schools that do not allow access to military recruiters when only one institution." Said Meehan, "I have serious concerns about restricting additional funding. ... This bill is a drastic solution to a problem that I do not think even exists." In fact, he added, "there is no crisis in military recruiting on student campuses or anywhere else in the country." He cited Defense Department statistics that "they are exceeding all of its recruitment and retention goals in each of the active duty services since 2001 and [they are] actively downsizing certain specialties requiring advanced degrees." Progressives' failure to block the legislation means the military can recruit on campus, notwithstanding an institution's specific policies barring discrimination based on sexual orientation or face losing federal funding.

On this bill (H.R. 3966) related to allowing military recruiters the same access to students at higher learning centers as have other prospective employers, House conservatives won 223-203 on a motion to "order the previous question." That refers to a procedural maneuver designed to close debate immediately, to prevent the moving of amendments or any other motions, and to bring the House at once to a vote on the immediately pending question -- in this case the resolution on the bill (H. Res. 580). A resolution outlines the parameters for debate on a bill, including any allowable amendments. In this case, no amendments were permitted, and progressives argued both against the bill and the underlying resolution on the grounds that the U.S. military should not be granted unfettered access to students, given its own policy of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Conservative Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) argued that the measure "shows our nation's unwavering commitment to both higher education and providing a strong national defense. If we are to be victorious in defending our freedom and protecting our homeland, that we promote military service as an option to college students across the U.S," said Boehner. However, progressives noted that many colleges and universities require employers to sign a non-discrimination pledge before they recruit on campus. That means employers cannot discriminate against prospective employees on many bases -- including sexual orientation. Yet, the U.S. military's ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy is "straight-forward discrimination" and in direct conflict with college policies of this nature, said Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif). Worse, progressives argued, the legislation would cut off federal funds to institutions that have policies against allowing recruiters on campus from employers that have an open policy of discrimination. "We should not be punishing universities that have legitimate policy differences. As long as the military continues its ill-advised policy of prohibiting service by openly gay members ... we should not force them to break their non-discrimination policies for the military," said Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.). By winning on this procedural vote, conservatives were able to shut down debate on whether the military's preferential hiring practices are at odds with campus policies objecting to sexual orientation discrimination.

House conservatives twisted arms in a big way to ensure a narrow defeat of a Democratic motion to instruct conferees on the budget on a tie vote, 209-209. After holding a five-minute vote open for 28 minutes, Republicans defeated a Democratic request that House conferees working with the Senate to reconcile their differing fiscal year 2005 budget resolutions to adopt the Senate's bipartisan pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules, which require that both spending increases and tax cuts are paid for somewhere else in the budget, either through spending cuts or revenues increased. Conservative Republican leaders in the House demanded that such rules apply to spending only. A unanimous Democratic Caucus was joined by 11 Republicans in voting for this Democratic motion. However, an additional eight other Republican members had cast 'yes' votes before Republican leaders, trying to stave off a defeat, twisted their arms and convinced them to change their votes. Progressives charged that the vote was evidence that Republicans "have neither the will nor the courage to make tough budget choices, as they shamelessly pretend that tax cuts have no impact on the exploding budget deficit that their failed policies have created." Pay-as-you-go rules do not preclude tax cuts, but require that they are paid for by cuts in other programs or increases in revenue. Senate Republican moderates supported their chamber's plan (S Con Res 95) only after winning a vote to restore now-expired pay-as-you-go rules requiring that the cost of additional tax cuts or new entitlement spending be offset with revenue increases or spending cuts. However, such a requirement is strongly opposed by House Republican conservatives, who feared it would imperil their ability to eventually make temporary tax cuts enacted over the past three years permanent law. "I'd rather not have a budget resolution than have PAYGO for taxes," said House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Conservatives' success in squeaking out this victory ensured the House bill contains no language directing House budgeters to pay for tax cuts via spending cuts or revenue increases elsewhere in the budget.

The purpose of the congressional budget process-and specifically the budget resolution-is to set an overall financial blueprint early in the congressional session to guide future spending decisions in the House and Senate on appropriations bills, tax legislation, and changes to mandatory spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare. While a budget resolution is non-binding and Congress is not required to stay within its limits, the majority party gains procedural protections during future debates on spending legislation if those measures stay within the budget caps set in the budget resolution (budget resolutions, it should be noted, are drafted by the White House but require congressional approval). The subject of this vote was final passage of the Republican version of the budget resolution which called for $821.3 billion in discretionary spending in 2005, $152.6 billion in tax cuts over five years, mandatory spending increases (on programs such as Social Security and Medicare) of five percent in 2005, and a seven percent increase in defense spending and a twelve percent increase in homeland security funding in 2005. Progressives voted against the Republican version of the budget resolution. In their view, that resolution contained what they characterized as an excessive amount of tax cuts and an inadequate amount of funding to reduce the budget deficit. Progressives argued that after three years of tax cutting by Congress and the White House-tax cutting which has contributed to record high budget deficits and an additional $1.2 trillion to the nation's debt-it was now time to restore some fiscal discipline in government. Conservatives voted in favor of the Republican budget resolution even though they felt as though it failed to provide enough tax cuts, domestic spending reductions, and funding increases to the military. On a party line vote of 215-212, the Republicans' budget resolution was adopted and the measure was sent to the Senate for consideration.

The purpose of the congressional budget process-and specifically the budget resolution-is to set an overall financial blueprint early in the congressional session to guide future spending decisions in the House and Senate on appropriations bills, tax legislation, and changes to mandatory spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare. While a budget resolution is non-binding and Congress is not required to stay within its limits, the majority party gains procedural protections during future debates on spending legislation if those measures stay within the budget caps set in the budget resolution (budget resolutions, it should be noted, are drafted by the White House but require congressional approval). To differentiate themselves with the majority party, minority party leaders often draft their own version of the budget resolution which accommodates their spending priorities. The subject of this vote was a budget resolution drafted by the Democratic leadership. If adopted, the Democratic leadership version of the budget resolution would have provided for a balanced budget by 2012, required domestic spending to keep pace with inflation, allowed for an extension of the $1000 child tax credit (which is essentially a tax cut for working families), reduced tax cuts for individuals who earn over $500,000 per year, and restored pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules to tax cut legislation in order to insure that revenue losses caused by tax cuts were offset by spending cuts or revenue increases in other areas of the budget. Progressives viewed the Democratic leadership's budget resolution as a fiscally responsible alternative to the Republican version. The Republican version of the budget resolution, Progressives argued, contained what they characterized as an excessive amount of tax cuts and an inadequate amount of funding to reduce the budget deficit. Progressives argued that after three years of tax cutting by Congress and the White House-tax cutting which has contributed to record high budget deficits and an additional $1.2 trillion to the nation's debt-it was now time to restore some fiscal discipline in government. Conservatives voted against the Democratic leadership's budget resolution on the grounds that it failed to provide enough tax cuts, domestic spending reductions, and funding increases to the military. On a party line vote of 194-232, the Democratic leadership's budget resolution was sunk and the spending priorities contained within it were not incorporated into the Republican version of the budget resolution.

The purpose of the congressional budget process-and specifically the budget resolution-is to set an overall financial blueprint early in the congressional session to guide future spending decisions in the House and Senate on appropriations bills, tax legislation, and changes to mandatory spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare. While a budget resolution is non-binding and Congress is not required to stay within its limits, the majority party gains procedural protections during future debates on spending legislation if those measures stay within the budget caps set in the budget resolution (budget resolutions, it should be noted, are drafted by the White House but require congressional approval). Often, however, alternative budget resolutions which reflect the priorities of factions within the majority or minority party are drafted and debated on the House floor. The subject of this vote was a budget resolution drafted by the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a coalition of conservative lawmakers in the House whose goals include expanding tax relief, cutting entitlement spending on programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and reducing domestic spending on education, welfare, and other social services. If adopted, the RSC budget resolution would have provided an additional $182.6 billion in tax cuts over five years, reduced the deficit by half in three years, cut non-defense discretionary spending by one percent, and cut non-Social Security mandatory spending by one percent. Progressives strongly rebuked the RSC budget resolution; in their view, its prescription for additional tax cuts and spending reductions were even more extreme than the Republican version of the budget resolution (which they also opposed). Republicans were about equally divided in their support for the RSC budget resolution. Moderate Republicans, like Democrats (including Progressives), viewed the RSC budget resolution as extreme and voted against it. Conservative Republicans voted in support of the RSC budget based on their view that the Republican version of the budget resolution failed to provide enough tax cuts and domestic spending reductions. On a vote of 116-309, the RSC budget resolution was defeated and the spending priorities contained within it were not incorporated into the Republican version of the budget resolution.

The purpose of the congressional budget process-and specifically the budget resolution-is to set an overall financial blueprint early in the congressional session to guide future spending decisions in the House and Senate on appropriations bills, tax legislation, and changes to mandatory spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare. While a budget resolution is non-binding and Congress is not required to stay within its limits, the majority party gains procedural protections during future debates on spending legislation if those measures stay within the budget caps set in the budget resolution (budget resolutions, it should be noted, are drafted by the White House but require congressional approval). Often, however, alternative budget resolutions which reflect the priorities of factions within the majority or minority party are drafted and debated on the House floor. The subject of this vote was a budget resolution drafted by "Blue Dog" Democrats, a coalition of self-described conservative and moderate Democrats who advocate for fiscal responsibility within the House. If adopted, the Blue Dog budget resolution would have provided for a balanced budget by 2012, cut the deficit in half over the next two years, prevented the passage of additional tax cuts until Congress and the president had taken action to reduce the deficit, and restored pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules to tax cut legislation in order to insure that revenue losses caused by tax cuts were restored by spending cuts or revenue increases in other areas of the budget. Progressives supported the Blue Dog budget resolution as a fiscally responsible alternative to the Republican version. The Republican version of the budget resolution, Progressives argued, contained what they characterized as an excessive amount of tax cuts and an inadequate amount of funding to reduce the budget deficit. Progressives argued that after three years of tax cutting by Congress and the White House-tax cutting which has contributed to record high budget deficits and an additional $1.2 trillion to the nation's debt-it was now time to restore some fiscal discipline in government. Conservatives voted against the Blue Dog budget resolution on the grounds that it failed to provide enough tax cuts, domestic spending reductions, and funding increases to the military. On a vote of 183-243, the Blue Dog budget resolution was struck down and the spending priorities contained within it were not incorporated into the Republican version of the budget resolution.

The purpose of the congressional budget process-and specifically the budget resolution-is to set an overall financial blueprint early in the congressional session to guide future spending decisions in the House and Senate on appropriations bills, tax legislation, and changes to mandatory spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare. While a budget resolution is non-binding and Congress is not required to stay within its limits, the majority party gains procedural protections during future debates on spending legislation if those measures stay within the budget caps set in the budget resolution (budget resolutions, it should be noted, are drafted by the White House but require congressional approval). Often, however, alternative budget resolutions which reflect the priorities of factions within the majority or minority party are drafted and debated on the House floor. The subject of this vote was a budget resolution drafted by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), a caucus of forty or so African-American lawmakers who seek to advance the interests of minorities and other underrepresented groups within the House. If adopted, the CBC's budget resolution would have added $43.4 billion to the Republican budget resolution for domestic programs such as education and health care, included an additional $5 billion in deficit reduction, rescinded tax cuts for individuals who earn over $200,000 per year, and reduced funding for the ballistic missile defense program. Progressives supported the CBC budget resolution because, in their view, it was more fiscally responsible that the Republican version. The Republican version of the budget resolution, Progressives argued, contained what they characterized as an excessive amount of tax cuts and an inadequate amount of funding to reduce the budget deficit. Progressives argued that after three years of tax cutting by Congress and the White House-tax cutting which has contributed to record high budget deficits and an additional $1.2 trillion to the nation's debt-it was now time to restore some fiscal discipline in government. Conservatives opposed the CBC's budget resolution on the grounds that it failed to provide enough tax cuts, domestic spending reductions, and funding increases to the military. On a vote of 119-302, the CBC budget resolution was struck down and the spending priorities contained within it were not incorporated into the Republican version of the budget resolution.

The purpose of the congressional budget process-and specifically the budget resolution-is to set an overall financial blueprint early in the congressional session to guide future spending decisions in the House and Senate on appropriations bills, tax legislation, and changes to mandatory spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare. While a budget resolution is non-binding and Congress is not required to stay within its limits, the majority party gains procedural protections during future debates on spending legislation if those measures stay within the budget caps set in the budget resolution. Before the budget resolution could be considered on the House floor, however, agreement needed to be reached on the rules governing debate (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate. Progressives opposed the motion to proceed based on their opposition to the underlying budget resolution (budget resolutions, it should be noted, are drafted by the White House but require congressional approval). Specifically, Progressives opposed what they characterized as an excessive amount of tax cuts which were contained in the Bush Administration's budget resolution. Progressives argued that after three years of tax cutting by Congress and the White House-tax cutting which has contributed to record high budget deficits and an additional $1.2 trillion to the nation's debt-it was now time to restore some fiscal discipline in government. Progressives also objected to Republicans' failure to budget for future costs associated with the occupation of Iraq. By excluding estimates of the future costs of Iraq's occupation, Progressives contended, the Republican leadership was deceiving the American public about the true costs of the occupation. Republicans defended the budget resolution and some Conservatives argued that the proposed tax cuts, domestic spending reductions, and funding increases to the military which were contained in the budget resolution did not go far enough. On a straight party line vote of 222-201, the motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate was adopted and the budget resolution was allowed to proceed in the legislative process.

Recent years have witnessed an acceleration of mergers and acquisitions in the banking industry. As a result, small town community banks are increasingly becoming a thing of the past. During debate on a non-controversial piece of legislation to loosen some regulations on banks and credit unions, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee (D-TX) proposed a non-binding amendment which would have expressed the "sense of the Congress" that merger applications between and among banks take into consideration the potential impact of the merger on their customers' ability to secure financing for homes, cars, businesses, and other financial pursuits. Progressives voted in favor of Jackson-Lee's amendment as a way to register their concern that bank mergers-while often beneficial to banks and their shareholders-can adversely impact the ability of customers to secure a loan. Conservatives opposed Jackson-Lee's proposal and argued that current law already required financial regulators to examine the impact of bank mergers on the communities involved. Jackson-Lee's non-binding amendment was rejected on a vote of 194-225.

If an individual deposits a check into their bank account and the signatory of the check does not have sufficient funds to cover the amount, then commercial banks are allowed to charge a fee to the depositor of the check. In the view of Progressives, this practice is unfair because in most cases individuals cannot possibly know whether or not the bank account from which a check is written has sufficient funds to cover it. During debate on a non-controversial piece of legislation to loosen some regulations on banks and credit unions, Congressman Weiner (D-NY) proposed an amendment supported by Progressives which would have prohibited the aforementioned practice of charging individuals for depositing bad checks. Conservatives opposed the Weiner amendment and argued that it would create an unfair situation in which customers who do not deposit bad checks are charged additional fees by their bank because, like most businesses, banks will pass on any additional costs to customers. On a vote of 167-255, the Weiner amendment was rejected and commercial banks were allowed to continue charging their customers a fee for depositing bad checks even if the customer did not know that the check would bounce.

To mark the anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, House Republican and Democrats might have joined forces to draft a non-controversial resolution commending U.S. troops for their military victory. Such was not the case. Instead, House Republican leaders formulated the resolution to endorse President Bush's foreign policy leadership without the input from Democrats on the International Relations Committee. The key language in the resolution which caused a stir among Democrats stated that "the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime." Democrats, including Progressives, offered a different account of President Bush's leadership. In their view, President Bush's go-it-alone strategy in Iraq needlessly alienated potential allies in the effort. As a result, they argued, the United States was paying a heavy price for military action in Iraq: 570 U.S. troops have been killed in action as of March 19, and the per-week cost of the occupation to U.S. taxpayers is $1 billion. Democrats also pointed to shortages of body armor and armored vehicles in Iraq to demonstrated the administration's lack of preparation for the postwar occupation. According to Representative Wexler (D-FL), "Iraq was not an imminent treat to America...There were no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. And there was no link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The only mushroom cloud resulting from the war in Iraq is that represented by the Bush administration's barrage of deception and lies." Conservatives, of course, saw the issue differently. During debate on the anniversary resolution, Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) asked opponents of the measure "What would you have us do? Wait until Saddam proved that he had nuclear weapons by detonating one in New York City? Wait like we waited for al Qaeda to prove that they really meant business on September 11, 2001?" The subject of this vote was final passage of the anniversary resolution. On a vote of 327-93, the anniversary resolution which praised President Bush's handling of the Iraqi war and postwar reconstruction was adopted.

To mark the anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, House Republican and Democrats might have joined forces to draft a non-controversial resolution commending U.S. troops for their military victory. Election-year politics, however, complicated bipartisanship. Instead, House Republican leaders formulated the resolution to endorse President Bush's foreign policy leadership without the input from Democrats on the International Relations Committee. The key language in the resolution which caused a stir among Democrats stated that "the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime." Democrats, including Progressives, offered a different account of President Bush's leadership. In their view, President Bush's go-it-alone strategy in Iraq needlessly alienated potential allies in the effort. As a result, they argued, the United States was paying a heavy price for military action in Iraq: 570 U.S. troops have been killed in action as of March 19, and the per-week cost of the occupation to U.S. taxpayers is $1 billion. Democrats also pointed to shortages of body armor and armored vehicles in Iraq to demonstrated the administration's lack of preparation for the postwar occupation. According to Representative Wexler (D-FL), "Iraq was not an imminent treat to America...There were no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. And there was no link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The only mushroom cloud resulting from the war in Iraq is that represented by the Bush administration's barrage of deception and lies." Conservatives, of course, saw the issue differently. During debate on the anniversary resolution, Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) asked opponents of the measure "What would you have us do? Wait until Saddam proved that he had nuclear weapons by detonating one in New York City? Wait like we waited for al Qaeda to prove that they really meant business on September 11, 2001?" On this vote, Republican leaders sought passage of the rules governing debate on the underlying anniversary resolution (before legislation can be considered on the House floor, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set ground rules for debate). Progressives voted against the rule based on their objections to the underlying resolution, and Conservatives voted in favor of the rule based on their support for the resolution. On a party line vote of 228-195, the rule was adopted and a final vote on the anniversary resolution was scheduled.

To mark the anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, House Republican and Democrats might have joined forces to draft a non-controversial resolution commending U.S. troops for their military victory. Such was not the case. Instead, House Republican leaders formulated the resolution to endorse President Bush's foreign policy leadership without the input from Democrats on the International Relations Committee. The key language in the resolution which caused a stir among Democrats stated that "the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime." Democrats, including Progressives, offered a different account of President Bush's leadership. In their view, President Bush's go-it-alone strategy in Iraq needlessly alienated potential allies in the effort. As a result, they argued, the United States was paying a heavy price for military action in Iraq: 570 U.S. troops have been killed in action as of March 19, and the per-week cost of the occupation to U.S. taxpayers is $1 billion. Democrats also pointed to shortages of body armor and armored vehicles in Iraq to demonstrated the administration's lack of preparation for the postwar occupation. According to Representative Wexler (D-FL), "Iraq was not an imminent treat to America...There were no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. And there was no link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The only mushroom cloud resulting from the war in Iraq is that represented by the Bush administration's barrage of deception and lies." Conservatives, of course, saw the issue differently. During debate on the anniversary resolution, Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) asked opponents of the measure: "What would you have us do? Wait until Saddam proved that he had nuclear weapons by detonating one in New York City? Wait like we waited for al Qaeda to prove that they really meant business on September 11, 2001?" The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed to a vote on the rules governing debate on the underlying anniversary resolution (before legislation can be considered on the House floor, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set ground rules for debate). Progressives voted against the motion to proceed based on their objections to the underlying resolution, and Conservatives voted in favor based on their support for it. On a perfectly party line vote of 217-197, the motion to proceed was adopted and a vote on the rules of debate governing consideration of the anniversary resolution was scheduled.

Protecting consumers from delinquent corporations has been a hallmark of progressive legislation since the industrial revolution. In recent years, progressive lawmakers have attempted to hold tobacco companies, firearms manufacturers, pharmaceutical firms, and, in this present case, fast food chains liable for alleged harms to consumers. Conservative lawmakers, conversely, have advanced legal reforms-so-called tort reforms-which aim to protect corporations from paying large sums to injured consumers. The subject of this vote was final passage of a bill which would prohibit lawsuits in both state and federal courts against fast food restaurants, food manufacturers and distributors based on claims that the food contributed to consumers' obesity and related health problems. Progressives opposed the legislation as a way to protect the legal rights of consumers. In their view, consumers should not be prevented from seeking legal remedies for alleged health problems caused by the consumption of fast food. Progressives were also concerned that the legal protections contained in the bill could be interpreted broadly to shield producers of harmful dietary supplements like ephedra from legal accountability for any health problems or death allegedly caused by the use of their product. A third objection raised by Progressives involved the sale of downed animal meat to humans. According to Progressives, provisions in the legislation could be used to protect renegade meat producers who illegally sell downed meat to humans from legal accountability for any negative health consequences caused by the consumption of downed animal meat (downed meat comes from animals who cannot walk or stand-often because they are too diseased to do so-and has been linked to outbreaks of E. coli, mad cow disease, salmonella, and other deadly food-borne pathogens). Conservatives voted in favor of the legal protections for the fast food industry as a way to protect corporations from what they characterize as frivolous lawsuits. Those lawsuits, Conservatives argued, cost fast food chains millions of dollars in legal fees which ultimately harm the estimated 12 million workers employed in the fast food industry. On a vote of 276-139, the legislation was adopted and the measure was sent to the Senate for consideration.

Republican-drafted legislation to prohibit lawsuits in both state and federal courts against corporations such as McDonald's and Burger King that adversely affect the health of consumers included a provision which would apply legal protections retroactively. Passage of the legislation, then, would nullify any outstanding lawsuits alleging that the fast food industry had negatively impacted the health of consumers. During debate on the measure, Congressman Watt (D-NC) offered an amendment which would have stripped the retroactive provision from the underlying legislation. Even though no weight-related lawsuits were pending against the fast food industry-courts had already dismissed them all-Progressives supported Watt's proposal as a way to maintain consumers' access to the courts for alleged health problems resulting from the consumption of fast food up until the date that the underlying legislation became law. Conservatives opposed Watt's proposal. In their view, the retroactive provision was needed to prevent what they described as the inevitable flood of lawsuits against fast food chains which would be filed just before the underlying legislation took effect. The goal of the bill, Conservatives pointed out, was to prevent frivolous lawsuits against fast food chains; Watt's amendment, they argued, would therefore undermine the purpose of the legislation. On a vote of 164-249, Watt's amendment was defeated and the retroactive provision remained in the underlying bill.

During debate on legislation to prohibit lawsuits in both state and federal courts against corporations such as McDonald's and Burger King that adversely affect the health of consumers, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee (D-TX) proposed an amendment which would have prevented the legal protections contained in the underlying bill from applying to manufacturers and distributors of weight loss products such as ephedra which have been found to harm the health of consumers. As originally written, Jackson-Lee pointed out, the prohibition on lawsuits could apply to the manufacturers and distributors of harmful weight loss products and dietary supplements because the measure makes no distinction between food and dietary supplements. Moreover, Jackson-Lee noted, the underlying measure would apply its legal protections retroactively. Therefore, if the bill becomes law, lawsuits that allege harmful effects from weight loss products and dietary supplements which have already been filed could be nullified and consumers would have no legal recourse to receive damages caused by the consumption of harmful products. Progressives supported Jackson-Lee's amendment and argued that producers of dietary supplements which cause injury or death or consumers should not benefit from the legal protections contained in the underlying legislation. Progressives pointed out that the use of ephedra-a drug which achieves weight loss by accelerating an individual's metabolism-has already been linked to 18,000 adverse reactions and 155 deaths. Conservatives opposed Jackson-Lee's amendment because they viewed it as irrelevant to the underlying legislation. According to Representative Sensenbrenner (R-WI), "this bill has nothing to do with weight loss products...It only deals with food that makes people increase their weight so that they become obese and have all of the medical problems related to obesity." On a vote of 166-250, the Jackson-Lee amendment was rejected and the underlying legislation was not amended to insure that consumers retain access to the courts to sue producers and distributors of harmful dietary supplements.

Regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibit meat producers from processing and selling for human consumption meat that comes from "downed animals" (animals that cannot stand or walk). Progressives note, however, that funding cuts in recent years have severely hindered the USDA's ability to enforce its prohibition against the sale of downed animal meat to humans. As a result, Progressives argue, downed animals-many of which cannot walk or stand because they are too diseased to do so-continue to contaminate the nation's food supply and have been linked to outbreaks of E. coli, mad cow disease, salmonella, and other deadly food-borne pathogens. During debate on legislation to shield corporations such as McDonald's and Burger King from weight-related lawsuits in both state and federal courts, Representative Ackerman (D-NY) proposed an amendment which would have changed the bill's definition of a "manufacturer" and "seller" to insure that those definitions do not apply to meat slaughtering, packing, canning, or rendering operations which provide meat to humans from downed animals. Progressives voted in favor of Ackerman's proposal because, in their view, companies that are responsible for providing downed meat to humans should be held fully accountable for any negative health consequences caused by the consumption of downed animal meat. The meat contained in some fast food hamburgers, Progressives noted, have been found to contain a non-negligible amount of downed animal meat. Conservatives voted against Ackerman's proposal and argued that the U.S. meat supply is already the safest in the world. Passage of Ackerman's amendment, they argued, would encourage frivolous lawsuits, cost fast food chains millions of dollars in legal fees as a result, and ultimately harm the estimated 12 million workers employed in the fast food industry. On a vote of 141-276, the Ackerman amendment was defeated and corporations involved in the sale of downed animal meat to humans were not denied the legal protections contained in the underlying legislation.

Protecting consumers from delinquent corporations has been a hallmark of progressive legislation since the industrial revolution. In recent years, progressive lawmakers have attempted to hold tobacco companies, firearms manufacturers, pharmaceutical firms, and, in this present case, fast food chains liable for alleged harms to consumers. Conservative lawmakers, conversely, have advanced legal reforms-so-called tort reforms-which aim to protect corporations from paying large sums to injured consumers. The underlying issue here is legislation to protect fast food chains such as McDonald's and Burger King from personal injury lawsuits involving obesity-related health problems. During debate on the measure, Representative Andrews (D-NJ) proposed an amendment which would have allowed consumers to file civil lawsuits against producers and distributors of genetically-modified (GM) foods in cases where health problems were allegedly caused by a corporation's failure to inform the consumer that the food he or she was eating had been genetically engineered. Progressives supported the Andrews amendment because, in their view, the food industry should not receive the legal protections contained in the underlying legislation unless producers and distributors of GM foods fully disclose all information to consumers regarding the exact nature of genetic modifications contained in their food. Conservatives voted against the Andrews amendment and argued that the disclosure requirements regarding GM foods would create new and expense regulations on the food industry, increase the cost of food production and distribution, and threaten jobs. On a vote of 129-285, the Andrews amendment was rejected and the labeling requirements for GM foods were not included in the underlying legislation.

During debate on legislation to shield corporations such as McDonald's and Burger King from weight-related lawsuits in both state and federal courts, Congressman Watt (D-NC) offered an amendment which would have restricted provisions in the underlying bill to lawsuits filed in federal courts. In other words, had Watt's amendment passed, states' Attorneys General would have retained their access to state courts if they chose to litigate on behalf of consumers in their state in cases involving alleged abuses of state consumer protection laws. Progressives voted in favor of Watt's proposal because, in their view, states' Attorneys General should retain the ability to hold corporations accountable for any violations of state consumer protection laws. Conservatives voted against Watt's amendment and argued that legal protections for fast food chains at both the state and federal levels were needed both to maintain legal uniformity in weight-related cases across states and to prevent a flood of frivolous lawsuits in state courts. Those lawsuits, Conservatives argued, could force companies to incur millions of dollars in legal expenses to the detriment of the estimated 12 million workers in the fast food industry. On a vote of 158-261, Watt's amendment was defeated and the underlying legislation was not amended to preserve states' rights to litigate on behalf of consumers in weight-related lawsuits involving alleged violations of state consumer protection laws.

Protecting consumers from delinquent corporations has been a hallmark of progressive legislation since the industrial revolution. In recent years, progressive lawmakers have attempted to hold tobacco companies, firearms manufacturers, pharmaceutical firms, and, in this present case, fast food chains liable for alleged harms to consumers. Conservative lawmakers, conversely, have advanced legal reforms-so-called tort reforms-which aim to protect corporations from paying large sums to injured consumers. At issue on this vote is legislation to protect fast food chains such as McDonald's and Burger King from lawsuits that allege that their products adversely affect the health of consumers by making them obese. The bill also prevents states' Attorneys General from enforcing consumer protection laws in cases involving alleged deception by corporations on weight-related issues. During debate on the measure, Congressman Scott (D-VA) proposed an amendment which would have maintained the rights of states' Attorneys General to enforce state consumer protection laws in cases involving mislabeling or other deceptive practices by corporations. Progressives supported Scott's amendment because, in their view, states' Attorneys General should retain the ability to hold corporations accountable for unfair or deceptive practices which harm consumers in their state. Conservatives opposed the amendment. In their view, uniform legal protections for fast food chains at both the state and federal levels were needed both to maintain legal uniformity in weight-related cases across states and to prevent a flood of frivolous lawsuits in state courts. Those lawsuits, Conservatives argued, could force companies to incur millions of dollars in legal expenses to the detriment of the estimated 12 million workers in the fast food industry. On a vote of 177-241, Scott's amendment was struck down and the underlying legislation was not amended to preserve the rights of states' Attorneys General to litigate on behalf of consumers in weight-related lawsuits involving alleged deception by corporations.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a bill-nicknamed Laci and Connor's law after the violent death of Laci Peterson and her unborn child Connor-that would make it a federal crime to injure or kill a fetus during the commission of a crime against a pregnant woman. The measure would establish criminal penalties equal to those that would apply if the injury or death occurred to the pregnant woman. While most lawmakers agree that crimes against pregnant women should carry extra punishments, Conservatives and Progressives had different views about how federal law should treat fetuses. In the view of Conservatives, federal law should recognize fetuses as distinct legal entities. Crimes against pregnant women, they argue, should result in two identical criminal charges. While Progressives supported increasing the penalties for crimes against pregnant women, they opposed granting fetuses legal rights independent of the mother. Putting the legal rights of fetuses on par with those of mothers, Progressives argued, could be used as a legal weapon to undermine abortion rights codified in the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. Despite the objections raised by Progressives, the fetal protection law was adopted on a vote of 254-163 and the measure was sent to the Senate for consideration.

Twenty-nine states have fetal homicide laws that apply to unborn children. However, there is currently no federal law which allows prosecutors to file criminal charges or add punishments for crimes against pregnant women. In an effort to extend legal protections to unborn children, Republican leaders brought legislation to the House floor which would make it a separate crime to harm a fetus during the commission of a crime against a pregnant woman. While most lawmakers agree that crimes against pregnant women should carry extra punishments, Conservatives and Progressives had different views about how fetuses should be treated in the eyes of the law. In the view of Conservatives, federal law should recognize fetuses as distinct legal entities and crimes against pregnant women should result in two identical criminal charges. While Progressives support increasing the penalties for crimes against pregnant women, they oppose granting fetuses legal rights which are independent of the mother. Putting the legal rights of fetuses on par with those of mothers, Progressives argued, could be used as a legal weapon to undermine abortion rights codified in the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. During debate on the fetal protection measure, Representative Lofgren (D-CA) offered alternative legislation on behalf of minority party Democrats which would have strengthened penalties for crimes against pregnant women without granting fetuses legal standing independent of mothers. Progressives voted in favor of the Democratic version of the fetal protection bill as a way to augment legal penalties for violence against pregnant women without conferring legal standing to fetuses in federal court. Conservatives opposed the Democrats' bill because they viewed it as too weak. In their view, federal law should provide fetuses with the same legal rights as everyone else. On a vote of 186-229, the Democratic version of the fetal protection measure was defeated and the underlying Republican version was allowed to proceed to a final vote.

Public employees in Texas and Georgia are not required to pay federal Social Security taxes and do not receive those benefits as a result; they are instead covered by state plans. If a spouse dies, however, public employees are in some cases eligible to receive their spouse's Social Security benefits. House Republican leaders viewed this as fraudulent and proposed legislation in 2003 to curb Social Security benefits for public employees in Texas and Georgia by requiring them to pay into the system for a minimum of five years to be eligible for full spousal benefits. Differences between the House and Senate versions the bill, however, were not reconciled in conference committee and the legislation did not become law in 2003. Early in 2004, House Republican leaders brought the measure back to the floor. The subject of this vote was a procedural motion to proceed to a vote on the rules governing debate on the social security protection bill (before legislation can be considered on the floor, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which acts essentially as an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set the ground rules for debate). Progressives opposed the motion to proceed based on their objections to the underlying legislation. In the view of Progressives, public employees such as teachers, firefighters, and police should not be penalized by the death of a spouse. Preventing widowed public servants from receiving the retirement benefits of their deceased spouse, Progressives argued, would cause serious financial hardship in many households especially if the death was unexpected and/or the couple was depending on the retirement benefits of the dead spouse. Conservatives voted in favor of the motion to proceed based on their view that widowed public servants should not receive their spouse's retirement benefits; allowing them to do so, they argued, was fraudulent. On a party-line vote of 226-197, the motion to proceed was adopted and a vote on the rules of debate governing consideration of the underlying measure was allowed.

During debate on legislation to reauthorize federal funding for the community services block grant program-a federal program which helps fund the anti-poverty efforts of over 1,000 charitable organizations-Congressman Miller (D-CA) proposed an amendment to extend unemployment benefits to out-of-work Americans by six months (unemployment benefits are provided to laid-off workers to help them support their families until they can find new jobs). Progressives supported the Miller amendment because, in their view, Republican leaders and the Bush Administration had failed to protect jobless workers from financial distress during the recent economic downturn which began in 2001. Conservatives opposed the amendment and argued that it would create a duplicative program within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department responsible for administering the underlying community services block grant program. The Labor Department, Conservatives argued, should remain the sole entity responsible for managing unemployment benefits. Representative Boehner (R-OH), Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, called Miller's amendment "a cruel, cynical hoax and a slap in the face to American working families." Despite the objections raised by Conservatives, thirty-nine Republican lawmakers-disproportionately those representing districts which have lost agricultural and manufacturing jobs in recent years-joined a unanimous group of Democrats in support of Miller's amendment, the measure passed on a 227-179 vote, and the six month extension of unemployment benefits was included in the underlying community services block grant program.

House rules severely limit the ability of minority party members in the lower chamber to amend legislation which is favored by majority party leaders and their rank-and-file. To contrast their position on specific issues with the views of the majority party, minority party Democrats often draft an alternative piece of legislation which reflects their priorities and offer it as an amendment during floor debate on the majority-supported bill. The purpose of this exercise is to alert voters about minority party positions on policy matters. During debate on legislation to reauthorize federal funding for the community services block grant program-a federal program which helps fund the anti-poverty efforts of over 1,000 charitable organizations-Representative Woolsey (D-CA) offered the Democratic version of the bill as an amendment to the Republican-drafted version. Progressives supported Woolsey's effort because, in contrast to the underlying Republican measure, the Democratic version of the bill would have prohibited charitable organizations which receive taxpayer money in the form of community service block grants from discriminating on the basis of religion when making hiring decisions (see also House vote 15). Additionally, the Democrats' bill would have prevented those organizations from requiring individuals who receive assistance to participate in religious activities (see also House vote 16). In the view of Progressives, taxpayers should neither subsidize nor condone organizations which use an individual's religion as a factor in deciding to hire him or her. Progressives also argued that the constitutionally-mandated separation between church and state forbids organizations from using taxpayer money for church recruitment or other religious activities. Conservatives voted against the Democrats' version of the bill on the grounds that its passage would have a chilling effect on the participation of religiously-affiliated providers of anti-poverty programs. Many religious groups, Conservatives argued, provide valuable assistance to the nation's poor and their participation in anti-poverty programs should be encouraged. On a vote of 183-232, the Democratic version of the community services block grant program was defeated and the Republican version was allowed to proceed to a final vote.

During debate on legislation to reauthorize federal funding for the community services block grant program-a federal program which helps fund the anti-poverty efforts of over 1,000 charitable organizations-Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA) proposed an amendment which would have prevented any organization that receives a federal block grant to combat poverty from requiring individuals who require the organization's assistance to participate in religious activities. Progressives endorsed Scott's proposal because, in their view, the constitutionally-mandated separation between church and state forbids organizations from using taxpayer money for church recruitment or other religious activities. Conservatives voted against Scott's proposal on the grounds that it would have a chilling effect on the participation of religiously-affiliated providers of anti-poverty programs. Many religious groups, Conservatives argued, provide valuable assistance to the nation's poor and their participation in anti-poverty programs should be encouraged. On a vote of 180-233, the Scott amendment was defeated and religious groups were not required to separate their religious activities from their anti-poverty programs.

In 1981, Congress created a community service block grant program to alleviate poverty by funding initiatives that fight its causes. Specifically, over 1,000 organizations across the U.S. are provided federal funding in the form of community service block grants to combat unemployment, inadequate housing, poor nutrition and the lack of educational opportunities. During debate on legislation to reauthorize federal funding for community service block grants, Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA) offered an amendment which would have prevented any organization which receives a community service block grant from discriminating on the basis of religion when making hiring decisions. Progressives voted in favor of Scott's amendment because, in their view, taxpayers should neither subsidize nor condone organizations which use an individual's religion as a factor in deciding to hire him or her. Conservatives voted against Scott's amendment and warned that its passage would have a chilling effect on the participation of religious groups in the community service block grant program. Many religious groups, Conservatives argued, provide valuable assistance to the nation's poor and their participation in anti-poverty programs should be encouraged. On a vote of 182-231, the Scott amendment was defeated and religious groups were allowed to continue to discriminate on the basis of religion when making hiring decisions.

After filing for bankruptcy, an individual or a business is usually required to restructure their finances in such a way as to allow the repayment of debts over a set period of time. To prevent conflicts of interest over the repayment of debts, bankruptcy rules forbid investment banks from restructuring the finances of their bankrupt clients. Bankruptcy reform legislation which recently passed the House, however, eliminated the conflict of interest provisions and allowed investment banks to work closely with their clients in drafting a repayment plan. The subject of this vote was a motion to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers chosen by their party's leadership to represent the House in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to reinsert the aforementioned conflict of interest provisions when drafting the final version of the legislation. In the wake of numerous corporate scandals on Wall Street, Progressives argued, the conflict of interest provisions were needed to help insure corporate integrity. If the financial success of an investment bank was closely tied with a bankrupt client, Progressives contended, then the bank would have an incentive to hide or cover-up the financial situation of a bankrupt entity. Conservatives voted against the motion to instruct because, in their view, investment banks are ideally situated to manage the financial restructuring of a bankrupt client because they are already familiar with the financial situation of their client. Hiring a new bank to manage a bankruptcy, Conservatives argued, would waste time and money. On a vote of 146-203, the motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to retain the conflict of interest provisions during conference committee negotiations with the Senate.

Legislation designed to overhaul the nation's bankruptcy rules has been a fixture on the congressional agenda since 1997. To date, however, agreement between the House and Senate has failed to materialize in large part because the Senate version of the bankruptcy reform bill contained a controversial abortion-related provision which would have prevented anti-abortion activists from declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying fines and court judgments related to property damage or violence to abortion clinics, patients, and/or doctors who practice the medical procedure. In an effort to revive negotiations between the House and Senate on bankruptcy reform legislation, Republican leaders in the House brought a Senate-passed bankruptcy measure to the floor and substituted the text of the Senate bill with language favored by the Republican leadership. While the Senate bill was narrowly tailored to address one particular aspect of the bankruptcy code-the ability of family farmers to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 12 protections (see House Vote 8)-the House version of the legislation offered a more comprehensive reform of bankruptcy rules. Specifically, the House version of the bankruptcy bill would require debtors who are able to repay either $10,000 or 25% of their debts over five years to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 rather than Chapter 7. In contrast to Chapter 7 bankruptcies which discharge an individual's debts, debtors who file for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy are required to reorganize their debts under a court-approved repayment plan. Progressives voted against the bankruptcy reform bill because, in their view, the legislation would undermine the hard-fought rights of consumers to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. Progressives also objected to what they characterized as a lack of bankruptcy protections for active and former U.S. military personnel and their families who had suffered financial hardship as a result of their military service. Conservatives voted in support of the bankruptcy reform legislation as a way to curtail what they viewed as excessive fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system. Increasingly, Conservatives argued, debtors where filing for bankruptcy to expunge their debts even though they had the financial means to repay those debts. On a vote of 265-99, the bankruptcy reform bill was adopted by the House and the measure was sent to the Senate for consideration.

The subject of this vote was a motion to recommit to committee a Republican-drafted bankruptcy reform bill with instructions to increase bankruptcy protections for active and former military personnel and their families. If successful, the motion to recommit would have required the legislation to be sent back to committee and amended in accordance with the aforementioned instructions. Progressives supported the motion to recommit as a way to protect military families from financial hardship caused by military service. Since the 9/11 attacks 350,000 National guard soldiers and reservists have been called to active duty, often to the detriment of family finances. Many of those ostensibly part-time soldiers, Progressives noted, were required to leave higher-paying jobs in order to serve their country. To make financial matters worse for those families, the Pentagon extended by a year or more the tours of duty for many part-time soldiers. In the view of Progressives, the underlying bankruptcy legislation should include better protections against financial hardship among current and former U.S. military personnel and their families. Conservatives voted in opposition to the motion to recommit and argued that the instructions to amend the bankruptcy legislation contained in the motion to recommit would have allowed wealthy veterans to qualify for additional bankruptcy protections which they did not need. During floor debate on the issue, Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-WI) argued that wealthy veterans such as Senator John Kerry (D-MA) should not be afforded the same bankruptcy protections as are veterans of more modest means. On a party line vote of 170-198, the motion to recommit was struck down and the underlying bankruptcy legislation was allowed to proceed to a final vote.

Legislation aimed at overhauling the nation's bankruptcy rules have been a fixture on the congressional agenda since 1997. To date, however, agreement between the House and Senate has failed to materialize in large part because the Senate version of the bankruptcy reform bill contained a controversial abortion-related provision which would have prevented anti-abortion activists from declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying fines and court judgments related to property damage or violence to abortion clinics, patients, and/or doctors who practice the medical procedure. The subject of this vote was a Democratic version of bankruptcy legislation which would make permanent Chapter 12 bankruptcy protections and expand eligibility requirements for family farmers. Chapter 12 bankruptcy protections were created in 1986 in order to allow family farmers to repay their debts based on arrangements made in bankruptcy court. In contrast to other chapters in the bankruptcy code, namely Chapter 11, bankruptcies filed under Chapter 12 do not necessarily require a family farmer to liquidate all assets and immediately sell the farm to cover debt payments. However, Chapter 12 bankruptcy protections require a congressional reauthorization every two years and, on December 31, 2003, the Chapter 12 provisions expired. Progressives supported the Democratic version of the bankruptcy bill and argued that Chapter 12 bankruptcy protections should be made permanent. In the view of Progressives, Chapter 12 protections strike an appropriate balance between the needs of debtors and creditors; family farmers usually retain their farms after poor farming seasons and creditors are guaranteed repayment of debts. Conservatives voted against the Democratic bankruptcy bill and argued that the Republican version of the legislation already contained provisions to make permanent Chapter 12 protections to family farmers. Conservatives also contended that family farmers would not be hurt by the expiration of Chapter 12 protections because the Republican bill makes those protections retroactive to December 31, 2003. On a vote of 153-204, the Democratic version of bankruptcy legislation was defeated and the Republican version of the bill was allowed to proceed in the legislative process.